ill in HI
107 146
CITE BY TITJL-IT A2STD
s § 22
CORPUS JURIS
SECUNDUM
A COMPLETE RESTATEMENT OF THE ENTIRE
AMERICAN LAW
AS DEVELOPED BY
ALL REPORTED CASES
By
The Editorial Staffs
of
THE AMERICAN LAW BOOK CO.
and
WEST PUBLISHING CO.
VOLUME XLIX
Kept to Date by Cumulative Annual Pocket Parts
Brooklyn, N. Y.
The American Law Book Co.
The Amerioa.n Law Boole
EXPLANATION
r I MrlE object in view in preparing Corpus Juris Secundiim has been two-
JL fold : First, to provide a complete encyclopedic treatment of the whole
body of the law, which means that it must be based upon all the reported
cases; Second, to present each title of the law in form and content most suit-
able as a means of practical reference for the Bench and Bar.
Corpus Juris Secundum is therefore a complete restatement of the entire
"body of American Law. The clear-cut and exhaustive propositions compris-
ing the text are supported by all the authorities from the earliest times to date.
The supporting case citations, conspicuously set out in the notes, point to all
decisions handed down since the publication of Corpus Juris. When the
searcher may wish to consult earlier authorities, a specific reference to Corpus
Juris makes available all cases back to 1658.
Each title is preceded by a complete section analysis, greatly simpli-
fied to facilitate research. Where the scope of any section is such as to re-
quire it, a more minute analysis is found thereunder in its appropriate place
within the title (see Abatement and Revival, Section 112). The convenience
of this method — an innovation in encyclopedic writing — must immediately
commend itself.
A concise black-letter summary, indicative of its scope, precedes the
full treatment or statement of the law under each section. These introduc-
tory summaries, concise and free from interlineation of authorities, have
proven of great convenience and value in legal research*
An index is found in the back of each volume covering the titles con-
tained therein, thus providing another convenient means of ready access to the
text and notes*
Corpus Juris Secundum is kept to date by means of annual cumula-
tive pocket parts for each volume. This feature of supplementation which
has proved so successful in modern digests and statutes conveniently, and
with certainty, keeps each title constantly to date through current cases and
new precedents.
Corpus Juris Secundum represents tbie combined product of the high'est
editorial talent and manufacturing skill Its many excellent editorial features
are fittingly accompanied by corresponding innovations and improvements in
mechanical arrangement, typography, and design, which .the publisher believes
will commend 'themselves to the profession as representing a new standard
in legal publications. THE puBLISHERS
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
REPORTS AND TEXTBOOKS
A.
Abb.
Abb.Adm.
Abb.App.Dec.
Abb.Dec.
Abb.N.Oas.
Abb.Pr.
Abb.Pr.N.S.
A'Beck.Res.
Judgm.
[1018JA.O.
Acton
Adams
A
Atlantic Reporter
Abbott (U.S.)
Abbott's Admiralty (U.S.)
Abbott's Appeals Decisions (N.Y.)
Abbott's Decisions (N.Y.)
Abbott's New Cases (N.Y.)
Abbott's Practice (N.Y.)
Abbott's Practice New Series (N.Y.)
A'Beckett's Reserved Judgments
15)17] Appeal Oases (Can.)
LW Reports [1918] Appeal Oases
Add.EcdL
A.&E.
A.&K.Eac.L.
A.&E.Enc.L.&Pr,
Aik*
A.K.Marsh.
Ala.
Ala.App.
Alaska
Alb.LJ.
A.L.O.
A1C.&N.
Alc.Rog.Gas*
Aleyn
Alison Pr,
Allen
Allen (N.B.)
Alta.L.
A.L.R.
Am.ltankr,
Ambl.
A.M.C.
Am.Corp.Cas,
Am.Or.
Am.D.
Am.&E.Corp.Cas.
Am.&E.Corp.Cas.
N»S»
Am.&Eng.Ency.
Law
Am.&E.EqIX
Am.&Eng.Pat
Cas,
Am.&Eng.R.R,
Cas,
Am.Electr.Cas.
Am.&E.K.Cas.
Am &B.R.Cas.N
S.
AmJJntL.
Am.L.J.
AmJJ.J.N.8.
Am.L.Rec.
CJ.S.
Acton (Eng.)
Adams Reports (N.H.)
Addison (Pa.)
Addams' Ecclesiastical (Bng.)
Adolphus & Ellis (Bug.)
American & English Encyclopaedia of
Law
American & English Encyclopedia of
Law & Practice
Aikens (Vt)
A. K. Marshall (Ky.)
Alabama
Alabama Appellate Court
Alaska
Albany Law Journal
American Leading Cases
Alcott & Napier (Eng.)
Alcock's Registry Cases (Bng.)
Aleyn (Eng.)
Alison's Practice (Sc.)
Allen (Mass.)
Allen, New Brunswick
Alberta Law
American Law Reports
American Bankruptcy (U.S.)
Ambler (Eng.)
American Maritime Cases
American Corporation Cases
American Criminal
American Decisions
American & English Corporation
Oases
American & English Corporation
Cases New Series
American and English Encyclopedia of
Law
American & English Decisions in Eq-
uity
American and English Patent Oases
American and English Railroad Oases
American Electrical Cases
American & English Railroad Oases
American & English Railroad Oases
New Series
American Journal of International
American Law Journal (Pa.)
American Law Journal New Series
American Law Record (Ohio)
Am.L.Reg.
Am.L.Reg.N.S.
Am.Law Reg.(O.
S.)
Am.L.Rev.
AmJUT.Bankr.
Am.Law lust
Am.Negl.Cas.
Am.NegLR,
A.M.&0.
Am.Prob.
Am.Prob.N.S.
Am.Pr.
Am.R.
Am.R.&Corp.
Am.R.Rep.
Am.S.R.
Am.St.R.D,
And.
Andr.
Ann.Cas.
Ann.Oas.l912A
Anstr.
Anth.N.P.
App.D.O.
App.Oas.
App.Div.
Anz.
Ark.
ArkJust
Arn.
Arn.&H.
Ashra.
Aspin. '
Atk.
Austr.C.L.R
AustrJur.
Austr.L.T.
Bacon Abr.
BaiLEq.
Bailey.
B.&Ald.
Baldw.
BalfPr.
Ball&B.
Bank.&InsJa.
Bann.
Bann.&A.
Barb.
Barb.Oh.
B.&Arn.
Barn.
Barn.0h.
Barnes
Barnes Notes
Batty
B.£Aust
Baxt
B.O.
American Law Register
American Law Register New Series
American Law Register Old Series
American Law Review
American Law Times Bankruptcy Re-
ports
American Law Institute,
Restatement of the Law
American Negligence Cases
American Negligence Reports
Armstrong, Macartney & Ogle (Ir.)
American Probate
American Probate New Series
American Practice
American Reports
American Railroad & Corporation
American Railway Reports
American State Reports
American Street Railway Decisions
Anderson (Eng.)
Andrews (Eng.)
American & English Annotated Oases
American Annotated Oases 1912A, et
seq.
Anstruther (Eng.)
Authors Nisi Prlug (N.Y.)
Appeal Cases (D.O.)
Law Reports Appeal Cases (Eng.)
Appellate Division (N.Y.)
Arizona
Arkansas
Arkley's Justiciary (Sc.)
Arnold (Eng.)
Arnold & Hodges (Eng.)
Ashmead (Pa.)
Aspinall's Maritime Oases (Eng.)
Atkyn (Eng.)
Commonwealth Law Reports, Aus-
tralia
Australian Jurist
Australian Law Times
B
Bacon's Abridgment (Eng.)
Bailey's Equity (S.O.)
Bailey's Law (S.C.)
Barnewall & Adolphus (Eng.)
Barnewall & Alderson (Eng.)
Baldwin (U.S.) ^ v
Balfour's Practice (Sc.) •
Ball&Beatty (Ir.)
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Reports
(Eng.)
Bannister (Eng.)
Banning & Arden (U.S.)
Barbour (N.Y.)
Barbour's Chancery (N.Y.)
Barron & Arnold (Eng.)
Barnardiston King's Bench (Eng.)
Barnardiston Chancery (Bng.)
Barnes' Practice Cases (Eng.)
Barnes' Notes (Eng.)
Batty (Ir.)
Barron & Austin (Eng.)
Baxter (Tenn.)
Bay (S.O.)
Broderip & Binghaxn (Eng.).
British Columbia
Tin
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
B.&0.
B.&MaoL
B.D.&O.
Beatty
Beav.
Beay.&WaIRy.
Cas.
Boav.R.&C.Cas.
Beaw.Lex.Mer.
Bee
BelL
Bell App.Cas.
Bell Cas.
Bell C.C.
Bell Comra.
Bell Sc.Cas.
Ben.
BenL
BenL&D.
B.&H.O.Cas.
Bibb
Bing.
Bing.N.Cas«
Binn.
Biss.
BittW,&P.
Black
Blackf.
Barnewall & Cresswell (Eng.)
Browne & Macnamara (Eng.)
Blackham, Dundas & Osborne (Ir.)
Beatty (Ir.)
Beavan (Eng.)
Beavan & Walford's Railway and Ca-
ual Cases (Eng.)
English Railway and Canal Cases
Beawes Lex Mercatoria (Eng.)
Bee (U.S.)
Bellewe (Eng.)
Bell's Appeal Cases (Sc.)
Bell's Cases (Sc.)
Bell's Crown Cases (Bng.)
Bell's Commentaries (Eng.)
Bell's Scotch Court of Session Cases
Benedict (U.S.)
Benloe (Eng.)
Benloe & Dallison (Eng.)
Bennett & Heard Leading
Cases (Eng.)
Bibb (Ky.)
Bingbam (Eng.)
Bingbam's New Oases (Eng.)
Biiiney (Pa.)
BisseU (U.S.)
Bittleson, Wise & Parnell (Eng.)
Criminal
Black (U.S.)
Blackford (Ind.)
Blackstone Comm. Blacks tone Commentaries
Bla.H.
Blair Co.
Bland
Bland's Oh.
BJatcbf.
Blatckf.&H.
Blatchf.PrizeCas.
Bligh
Blish N.S.
B.Mon.
Bond
Bouvier*
Bovco
B.&P.
B.&P.N.B.
Bract
Bradf.Surr.
Brayt.
B.R.G.
Brev.
Brewst
Brightly
Brightly El.Cas.
Bro.Ch.
Brock.
Brock.Cas.
Brod.&B.
Brod.&Fr.
Brodix Am.&E.
Pat.Cas.
Bro.Just.
Brook Abr.
Brook N.Cas.
Brooke N.G.
Bro.P.C.
Brown Adm.
Brown, Ch.
Brown Ecc.
Brown N.P.
Brown,Parl.Cas.
Browne
Brown.&I».
BrownL&G.
Bruce
Brunn.0oll.0as.
B.&S.
B.T.A.
Buck
Puller NJP.
Bulstr.
Henry Blackstone's English Common
Pleas (Eng.)
Blair County (Pa.)
Bland (Md.)
Bland Chancery (Md.)
Blatchford (U.S.)
Blatchford & Howland (U.S.)
Blatchford's Prize Cases (U.S.)
Bligh (Eng.)
Bligh New Series (Eng.)
B. Monroe (Ky.)
Bond (U.S.)
Bouvier's Law Dictionary
Boyce (Del.)
Bosanquet & Puller (Eng.)
Bosanquet & Puller's New Reports
(Eng.)
Brae ton de Legibus et Consuetudini-
bus AngliiB
Bradford's Surrogate (N.Y.)
Brayton (Vt.)
British Ruling Cases
Brevard (S.G.)
Brews ter (Pa.)
Brightly (Pa.)
Brightly's Election Gases (Pa.)
Brown's Chancery (Eng.)
Brockoiibrough (U.S.)
Brockenbrough's Virginia Cases
Broderip & Bingham (Eng.)
Broderick & JTremontle's Ecclesiasti-
cal Coses
Brodix's American. & English Patent
Cases
Brouu's Justiciary (Sc.)
Brook's Abridgments (Eng.)
Brook's New Gases (Eng,)
Brooke's New Cases
Brown's Parliament Oases (Eng.)
Brown's Admiralty (U.S.)
Brown's Chancery Cases (fing.)
Brown Ecclesiastical (Eng.)
Brown's Michigan Nisi Prius
Brown Parliamentary Cases (Eng.)
Browne (Pa.)
Browning & Lushinffton (Bng.)
Brownlow & Goldesborough (Eng.)
Bruce (Sc.)
Brunner's Collective Oases (U.S.)
Best & Smith (Eng.)
Board of Tax Appeals (U.S.)
Buck (Eng.)
Buller's Nisi Prius (Eng.)
Bulstrode (Eng.)
Burn.
Burr.
Burr.S.Oas.
Busb.
Busb.Eq.
Bush
B.W.C.O.
Bunbury
Burnett
isT)
Cab.&E.
Cai.
Cai.Cas.
Cal
Cal.(2d)
Cal.App.
Oal.App.(2d)
Cald.
CaU
Calthr.
CaLUnrep.Cas.
Cam.Cas.
Campb.
Canal Zone
Can.App.Cas.
Can.Cr.Cas.
Can.Exch.
Cau.L.J.
Can.LJ.N.S.
Can.L.T.Occ.
Notes
Can.R.Cas.
Can.S.C.
Canc&L.
Car.&K.
Car.&M.
Car.&P.
Car.H.&A.
Carp.P.O.
Carter
Garth.
Cartwr.Cas.
Gary
Cas.
Cas.tHardw.
Cas.t.Holt
Oas.tKing
Gas.tTalb.
O.B.
C.B.N.S.
C.O.A.
O.O.PJL
C«ntr.LJ.
ri891] Ch.
Ghamb.Rcp.
Chandl
Charlt.R.M.
Charlt.T.UJP.
Chase
Ch.0as.
Ch.Chamb.
CLOoLOp.
Ch.D.
GhestOo.
Chev.
Chit.
Ohoyce Cas.Ch,
Oh.Rcp.
Oh.Sent.
Cinc.L.BuL
Cinc.Super.
City Ct.R.
City Hall Rec.
._.,
Burrows (Eng.)
Burrows' Settlement Gas. (Eng.)
Busbee (N.C.)
Busbee Equity (N.O.)
Bush (Ky.)
Butterworth's Workmen's Compensa-
tion Cases (Eng.)
Oababe & Ellis (Eng.)
Games (N.Y.)
Games' Cases (N.Y.)
California
California Reports, Second Series
California Appellate Court
California Appellate Reports, Second
Series
Oaldecott (Eng.)
Call (Va.)
Calthrop (Eng.)
California Uureported Gases
Cameron's Gases (Can.)
Campbell (Eng.)
Canal Zone Supreme Court
Canadian Appeal Canes
Canadian Criminal Coses
Canadian Exchequer
Canada Law Journal
Canada Law Journal New Serios
Canadian Law Times Occasional Notes
Canadian Railway Cases
Canada Supremo Court
Cane & Leigh Crown Cases Reserved
(Eng.)
Carrington & Kirwan (Bng.)
Garrington & Marshman (Eng.)
Carrington & Payne (Eng.)
Carrow, Hamcrton & Allen (Eng.)
Carpmacl Patent Gases (Eng.)
Carter (Eng.)
Oarthew (Eng^)
Oartwritfht's Gases (Can.)
Gary (lOng.)
Casey (Pa.)
Gases temp. Hardwickc (Eng.)
Gases tcrnp. Molt (Eng.)
Cases temp. King (En#.)
Oases temp. Talbot (Eng.)
Common Bench (Manning, Granger &
Scott) (Eng.)
Common Bench New Series (Manning,
Granger & Scott New Series) (Eng.)
Circuit Court of Appeals (U.S.)
Court of Customs and
Central Law Journal
LAW Reports [1801] Chancery (Eng.)
Chamber (Ont.)
Chandler (Wis.)
R. M. Gharlton (Ga.)
T. U. P. Charlton (Ga.)
Chase (U.S.)
Gases in Chancery (Eng.)
Chancery Chambers (U.C.)
Chalmers' Colonial Opinions
Law Reports Chancery Division
(Eng.)
Chester County (Pa.)
Cheves (S.O.)
Chitty (Eng.)
Ghoyce Oases in Ohancery (Eng.)
Chancery Reports (En#.)
Chancery Sentinel (N.Y.)
Weekly Law Bulletin (Oh.)
Cincinnati Superior Court Reporter
(Oh.)
City Court Reports (N.Y.)
City Hall Recorder (N.Y.)
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
Civ.ProoRep*
C.J.
C.J.S.
C.&K.
0.&L.
CLApp<
CLChT
Clark &F.
Clark &Fin,N.S.
Clarke
Clarke &S.Dr.Cas.Clarke &
_(0nt.)
Clarke Ch.
Clayt.
C.L.Chamb.
Glev.L.Rec.
Clev.L.Rep.
C1.&F.
Clif.El.Cas.
Cliff.
C.L.R.
C.&M.
C.M.&R.
Cockf&Rowe.
Code Rep.
Code Rep.N.S.
Coff.Prob.
Co.Inst.
Coke
CoLOas.
CoL&O.Cas.
Ool.C.O.
Coldw.
ColL
CoLLJtep.
GoLLaw Review
Coll.&E.Bank.
Civil Procedure Reports (N.Y.)
Corpus Juris
Corpus Juris Annotations
Corpus Juris Secundum
Carrington & BSrwan (Eng.)
Connor & Lawson (Ir.V
Clark's Appeal Cases (Eng.)
Clarke's Chancery (N.Y.)
Clark & Finnelly (Eng.)
Clark's House of Lords Cases (Eng.)
Clarke's Chancery (N.Y.)
" " ~ Scully's Drainage Cases
Colles
Colo.
Colo.App-
Colq.
Coltm.
Comb.
Com.Cas.
Com.L.
Gomptr.Treas.
Dec.
Comst
Comyns
Comyns Dig1.
Con.&Law.
Conf.
Conn.
Conn.Surr.
Const
Cooke
Cooke
Cooke & A.
Cook Vice-Adm.
Coop.
Coop.Pr.Cas.
Coop.tJBrough.
Coop.tXJott.
Coop.t.EHd.
Co.P.0.
Corb.&D.
Court&MacL
Cow.
GowXJr-Rep.
Cowp.
Cox.Am.T.M.Cas.
Cox C.O.
Cox Oh.
Cox &Atk.
G.&P.
C.P.O.
C.P.D.
Clarke's Chancery (N.Y.)
Clayton's Reports, York'
(Eng.)
Chamber's Common Law (U.C.)
Cleveland Law Record (Oh.)
Cleveland Law Reporter (Oh.)
Clark & Finnelly (Eng.)
Clifford's Southwick Election Cases
Clifford (U.S.)
Common Law Reports (Eng.)
Carrington & Marshman (Eng.)
Crompton, Meeson & Roscoe (Eng.)
Cockburn & Rowe's Election Cases
Code Reporter (N.Y.)
Code Reports New Series (N.Y.)
Coffey's Probate (CaL)
Coke's Institutes
Coke (Eng.)
Coleman's Cases (N.Y.)
Coleman & Caines' Cases (N.Y.)
Collyer's Chancery Cases (Eng.)
Coldwell (Tenn.)
Collyer (Eng.)
Colorado Law Reporter
Columbia Law Review
Collier and Eaton's American Bank-
ruptcy Reports
OoUes* Cases in Parliament (Eng.)
Colorado
Colorado Appeals
Colquit
Coltman (Eng.)
Comberbach (Eng.)
Commercial Cases (Eng.)
Commercial Law (Can.)
Comptroller Treasury Decisions
Comstock (N.Y.)
Comyns (Eng.)
Comyns Digest (Eng.)
Connor & Lawson (Ir.)
Conference Reports (N.C.)
Connecticut
Connolly's Surrogate (N.Y.V
Constitutional Reports (N.C.)
Cooke (Eng.)
Cooke (Tenn.)
Cooke & Alcock (Ir.)
Cook's Vice-Admiralty (L.C.)
Cooper's Chancery (Eng.)
Cooper's Practice Cases (Eng.)
Cooper's Cases temp. Brougham
(Eng.)
Cooper's Cases temp. Cottenham
(Bng.)
Cooper's Cases tempore Eldon (Eng.)
Coke's Reports (Eng.)
Corbett & DanielTs Election
(Eng.)
Courtnay & Maclean (Sc.)
Cowen (N.Y.)
Cowen's Criminal (N.Y.)
Cowper (Eng.)
Cox's American Trade-Mark Cases
Cox's Criminal Cases (Eng.)
Cox's Chancery (Bng,)
Law Reports Common Pleas Division
(Eng.)
Orabbe
Cranch
Cranch C.C.
Cranch PatDec*
Cr^pp.
Crawf.&D.
Crawf.&DAbr*
Cas.
Cripp's Ch.Cas.
Cr.LMag.
Cr.&Ph/
Cro.Car.
Cro.Eliz.
Cro.Jac.
Cromp.&J.
Cromp.&M.
Crosw.Pat.Cas*
Cr.&Ph.
CtOL
Ct.Cust.&Pat
App.
Cunn.
Curt
Curt.EccL
Gush.
Cust^A.
Cyc.
Dak.
DaLQP*
Dall,
DalL
Daly
Dan.
Dana
Dane Abr.
Dans.&L.
D'Anv.Abr.
Dauph.Co,
Dav.&M.
Davys
D.B.&M.
D.C.
D.Chipm.
Deac.
Deac.&O.
Deady
Dears.&B.
Dears.C.C.
Deas & A.
De Gex
De G.F.&J.
De G.J.&S.
De G.&J.
De GJtf.&G.
De a&Sm.
Del.
Del.Cn.
Del.0o.
Dem.Surr.
Den!c.C.
Desans.Bq.
Dev.CtCL
Dev.L.
Dev.&BaL
Dick.
Dill.
DirLDec.
Disn.
Crabbe (U.S.)
Cranch (U.S.)
Cranch's Circuit Court (U.S.)
Cranch's Patent Decisions (U.S.)
Criminal Appeals (Eng.)
Crawford & Dix.Or.)
Crawford & Dix's Abridged Case
Crippfs Church and Clergy Cases
Criminal Law Magazine
Craig & Phillips (Eng.)
Christopher Robinson's Admiralt;
(Eng.)
Croke Charles (Eng.)
Croke Elizabeth (Eng.)
Croke's Reports tempore James (Ja
cobus) (Eng.)
Crompton & Jervis (Eng.)
Crompton & Meesou (Eng.)
Croswell's Collection of Patent Case
(U.S.)
Craig & Phillips (Eng.)
Court of Claims (U.S.)
Court of Customs and Patent Appeal
Cunningham (Eng.)
Curtis (U.S.)
Curteis Ecclesiastical (Eng.)
Gushing (Mass.)
United States Customs Appeals
Cyclopedia of Law & Procedure
Cyclopedia of Law & Procedure As
notations
D
Dakota
Dalison's Common Pleas (Eng.)
Dallaman's Decisions (Tex.)
Dallas (Pa.)
Dallas (U.S.)
Dalrymple's Decisions (Sc.)
Daly (N.Y.)
Daniell (Eng.)
Dana (Ky.)
Dane's Abridgment
Danson & Lloyd (Eng.)
D'Anver's Abridgment (Eng.)
Dauphin County (Pa.)
Davison & Merivale (Eng.)
Davys (Ir.)
Day (Conn.)
Dunlop, Bell & Murray (Sc.)
District of Columbia
D. Chipman (Vt)
Deacon (Eng.)
Deacon & Chitty (Eng.)
Deady (U.S.)
Dearsley & Bell (Eng.)
Dearsley's Crown Cases (Eng.)
Deas & Anderson (Eng.)
De Gex (Eng.)
De Gex, Fisher & Jones (IBng.)
De Gex, Jones & Smith (Eng.)
De Gex & Jones (Eng.)
De Gex. MacNaghten & Gordo
(Eng.)
De Gex & Smale (Eng.)j
Delaware
Delaware Chancery
Delaware County (Pa.)
Demarest's Surrogate (N.Y.)
Denio (N.Y.)
Denison's Crown Cases (Eng.)
Desaussure (S.O.)
Devereux's Court of Claims (U.S.)
Devereux (N.C.)
Devereux & Battle (N.C.)
Dickens (Sc.)
Dillon (U.S.)
Dirleton's Decisions (Sc.)
Disney (Oh.)
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
D.&L,
Dods.
Dom.L.R.
Donnelly
Dorion
DougL
Dougl.
DougLELCas.
Dow
Dow& OL
Dow.&L.
Dow.N.S.
DowL
Dowl.P.0.
DowlJP.C.N.S.
D.&R.
Draper
Drew.
Drinkw.
D.&R.Mag.Cas.
D.&R.N.P.
Dr.&Sm.
Drury
Dr.£WaL
Dr.&War.
D.&SW*
Dud.Eq.
DudL
Duet
Dunl.B.&M.
Dunlop
Dunn,
Durie
Durn.&E.
Duv.
Dyer
East
East.L.R.
East P.O.
East.T.
E.&B.
E.B.&E.
E.B.&S.
E.O.L.
Eden
Edgar
Edm.Sel.Oas.
E. D. Smith
Bdw.
Edw.
Edw.Abr.
Edw.Adm.
E.&E.
Enc.Pl.&Pr.
Ency.Law.
Eng.Ad.
Eng.C.O.
Eng.Ch.
Eng.Ecd.
Eng.Ecc.R.
Eng.Exch.
Eng.L.&Eq.
Eng.Eep.R.
Eng.Ry.&O.Oas.
Eng.&Ir.App.
Eq.Oas.Abr.
Eq.Rep.
E.R.O.
Dowling £ Lowndes (Eng.)
Dodson's Admiralty (Eng.)
Dominion Law Reports (Can.)
Donnelly (Eng.)
Dorion (L.C.)
Douglas (Eng.)
Douglass (Mich.)
Douglas' Election Cases (Eng.)
Dow (Eng.)
Dow £ Clark (Eng.)
Dowling £ Lowndes (Eng.)
Dowling. New Series (Eng.)
Dowlinrs English Bail Court (Prac
tice) Cases
Dowling's Practice Cases (Eng.)
Dowling's Practice Cases New Series
(Eng.)
Dowling £ Ryland (Eng.)
Draper (U.C.)
Drewry (Eng.)
Drinkwater (Eng.)
Dowling £ Ryland's Magistrate Oases
(Eng.)
Dowling & Ryland's Nisi Prius (Eng.)
Drewry £ Smale (Eng.)
Drury (Ir.)
Drury £ Walsh (Ir.)
Drury £ Warren (Ir.)
Deane & Swabey (Eng.)
Dudley (S.O.)
Dudley (Ga.)
Duer's Superior Oourt (N.Y.)
Dunlop, Bell & Murray (Sc.)
Dunlop (Sc.)
Dunning (Eng.)
Durie (Sc.)
Durnford £ East (Eng.)
Duvall (Ky.)
Dyer (Eng.)
E
East (Eng.)
Eastern Law Reporter (Can.)
East's Pleas of the Crown (Eng.)
Eastern Term (Eng.)
Ellis £ Blackburn (Eng.)
Ellis, Blackburn & Ellis (Eng.)
Ellis, Best £ Smith (Eng.)
English Common Law
Eden (Eng.)
Edgar (Sc.)
Edmond's Select Oases (N.Y.)
E. D. Smith (N.Y.)
Edwards (Eng.)
Edwards' Chancery (N.Y.)
Edwards' Abridgment of Prerogative
Court Cases
Edwards' Admiralty (Eng.)
Elk's £ Ellis (Eng.)
Encyclopedia of Pleading & Practice
American and English Encyclopaedia of
Law
English Admiralty
English Crown Cases
English Chancery
English Ecclesiastical Reports
English Ecclesiastical Reports
English Exchequer Reports
English LaV & Equity
English Reports, Full Reprint
English Railway and Canfel Cases
Law Reports, English and Irish Appeal
Euer
Exch. -
Exch.Cas.
Equity Cases Abridged (Eng.)
Equity Reports (Eng.)
English Ruling Cases
Espinasse's Nisi Prius (Eng.)
Euer (Eng.)
Exchequer (Eng.)
Exchequer Oases (Sc.)
Ex.D.
Eyre.
Falc.
Falc.&F.
Far.
F.Cas.No.
F.(CtSess.)
F.
F.f2d)
F.R.D.
F.Supp.
Ferg.Cons.
F.&F.
Fish.Pat.Cas.
Fish.Pat.R.
Fish.PmeCas.
Fitzg.
Fitzh.
Fitzh.N.Br.
Fla,
Flipp.
F1.&K.
Fonb.Eq.
Fonbl.
Fonbl.R.
Forbes
Forr.
Forrester
Fortesc.
Fost
Fost.
Fost&Fin.
FountDec,
Fox
Fox & S.
Freem.
Freem.
Frecm.K.B.
Ga.
Ga.App.
Ga.Dec.
Gale
Gal.
G.Ooop.
G.&D.
GehL&M.
Gibb.Surr.
Giffard
Giff.&H.
Gil.
Gilb.
Gilb.Cas.
Gilb.C.P.
Gilb.Exch.
GUI
Gffl&T.
Gilm.
Gilm.&Falc.
Gilp.
Glasc.
Gljm&J.
Godb.
Godo.
Goeb.
Gosf.
Gouldsb.
Gow
Gow N.P.
Grant
Srant Oh.
Grant Err.&App.
Gratt
Gray
Law Reports Exchequer Division
(Eng.)
Eyre's Reports (Eng.)
F
Falconer's Court of Sessions (Sc.)
Falconer & Fitzherbert (Eng.)
Farresley (Eng.)
Federal Cases (U.S.)
Fraser's Court of Sessions Cases (Sc.)
Federal Reporter (U.S.)
Federal Reporter Second Series
Federal Rules Decisions
Federal Supplement
Ferguson's Consistory (Eng.)
Foster & Finlason (Eng.)
Fisher's Patent Cases (U.S.)
Fisher's Patent Reports (U.S.)
Fisher's Prize Cases (U.S.)
Fitzgfbbon (Eng.)
Fitzherbert's Abridgment (Eng.)
Fitzherberf s Natura Brevium . (Eng.)
Florida
Flippin (U.S.)
Flanagan & Kelly (Ir.)
Fonblanque's Equity (Eng.)
Fonblanque (Eng.)
Fonblanque's English Cases
Forbes (Eng.)
Forrest (Eng.)
Forrester's Cases (Eng.)
Fortescue (Eng.)
Foster (Eng.)
Foster (N.H.)
Foster & Finlason (Eng.)
FountainhalTs Decisions (Sc.)
Fox Reports (Eng.)
Fox & Smith (Ir.)
Freeman's Chancery (Eng.)
Freeman's Chancery (Miss.)
Freeman's King's Bench (Eng.)
G
Georgia
Georgia Appeals
Georgia Decisions
Gale (Eng.)
Gallison (U.S.)
G. Cooper (Eng.)
Gale & Davidson (Eng.)
Geldart & Maddock (Eng ~
Gibbon's Surrogate (N.3
Giffard (Eng.)
Giffard and Hemming (Eng.)
Gilfillan's Edition (Minu.)
Gilbert's (Eng.)
Gilbert's Cases (Eng.)
Gilbert's Common Pleas (Eng.)
Gilbert's Exchequer (Eng.)
Gill (Md.)
GUI & Johnson (Md.)
Gilmer (Va.)
Gilmour & Falconer (Sc.)
Gilpin (U.S.)
Glascock (Ir.)
Glyn & Jameson (Eng,)
Godbolt (Eng.)
Godolphin's Abridgment of Ecclcsias*
Goebel's Probate Court Oases
Gosford (Eng.)
Gouldsborough (Eng.)
Gow (Eng.)'
Gow's English Nisi Prius Cases
Grant's Cases (Pa.)
Grant's Chancery (U.O.)
Grant's Error & Appeal (U.C.)
Grattan (Va.)
Gray (Mass.)
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
Green Or.
Greene
GwilLT.Cas.
Hadd.
Hagg.Adm.
Hagg.Cons.
Hagg.EccL
Hailes Bee.
Hale J
Hale Ecc.
Hale P.C.
Hall
Hall&T.
Halsbury L.Eng.
Handy
Han.(NJB.)
Hard.
Hardres
Hare
Harp.Eq.
Harr.
Harr.fDeL)
Harr. (Mich.),
Harr.&G.
Harr.Oh.
Harr.&H.
Harr.&J.
Harr.&M.
Harr.&B.
Harr.&W.
Hask. .
HaviL
Hawaii
HawaiLFed.
Hawaiian Hep.
Hawk.P.O.
Hay.Exch.
Hayes •
Hayes&J.
Hay&M.
Hayw.-
^
Hayw.&H.
Haz.Beg.
H.B1.
H.&0.
Head
Heisk.
Hem.&M.
Hempst
Hen.&M.
Het.
Het.C.P.
H.&H.
HiU
HiU S.C.
Hill &Den. %
Hill &Den. Supp.
WIT.
H.L.Cas.
H.&N.
Hob.
Hodg.ESL
Hocfees
Uoffm.
H-offm.Land Gas.
Ho*.
Holmes
golt Adm.Oas.
olt Bq.
Holt K.B.
Holt N.P.
Home
Hope Dec.
Hopk.
Hopk.Dec.
Green's Criminal Law (Eng.)
Greene (Iowa)
Gwillim's Tithe Cases (Eng.)
Hac
Haggard's Admiralty (Eng.)
Haggard's Consistory (Eng.)
Haggard's Ecclesiastical (Bng.)
Hailes' Decisions (Sc.)
Hale's Common Law (Eng.)
Hale's Ecclesiastical (Eng.)
Hale's Pleas of the Crown (Eng.)
Hall's Superior Court (N.Y.)
Hall & TweUs (Eng.)
Halsbury's Law of England
Handy (Oh.)
Hannay's Beports, New Brunswick
Hardin (Ky.)
Hardres (Eng.)
Hare (Eng.)
Harper (S.C.)
Harrison's Chancery (Mich.)
Harrington (DeL)
Harrington's Michigan Chancery Be-
ports
Harris & Gill (Md.)
Harrison's Chancery (Eng.)
Harrison & Hodgins (U.C.)
Harris & Johnson (Md.)
Harris & McHenry (Md.)
Harrison & Butherford (Eng.)
Harrison & Wollaston (Eng.)
HaskeU (U.S.)
Haviland (PrJSdwJsL)
Hawaiian
Hawaiian Federal
Hawaii Beports
Hawkins* Pleas of the Crown (Eng.)
Hayes Exchequer (Ir.)
Hayes (Ir.)
Hayes & Jones (Ir.)
Hay & Marriott (Eng.)
Haywood (N.C.)
Haywood & Hazelton (U.S.)
Hazard's Register (Pa.)
Henry Blackstone (Eng.)
Hurlstone & Coltman (Eng.) ,
Head (Tenn.)
HeiskeU (Tenn.)
Hemming & Miller (Eng.)
Hempstead (U.S.)
Henning & Munf ord (Va.)
Hetley (Eng.)
Hetley'e Common Pleas (Eng.) .
Horn & Hurlstone (Eng.)
HiU (N.Y.)
HiU (S.C.)
Hill & Denio (N.Y.)
Lalor's Supplement to HOI & Denio's
(N.Y.)
Hilton (N.Y.)
HUaryTerm (Eng.) f^
House of Lords Cases (Eng.)
Hurlstone & Norman (Eng.)
Hobart (Eng.)
Hodgins' Election (U.C.)
Hodges (Eng.) ,-T_v
Hoffman's Chancery (N.Y.)
Hoffman's Land Cases (U.S.)
Hogan (Ir.)
Holmes (U.S.) . , _.
Holt's English Admiralty Cases
Holt's King's Bench (Eng.)
Holf s Nisi Prius (Eng.)
Home (Sa\ . .
Hope's Decisions (Sc.)
Hopkins' Chancery (N.Y.)
Hopkins' Decisions (Pa.)
Hopw.&C. Hopwood & Coltman (Eng.)
Hopw.&P. Hopwood & Philbrick (Eng.)
Hosea Hosea (Ohio)
Houst. Houston (DeL)
Houst.Cr. Houston's Criminal Cases (DeL)
How. Howard (U.S.)
How. (Miss.) Howard (Miss.)
HowA.Cas. Howard's Appeal Cases (N.Y.)
How.N.P. HoweU's Nisi Prius (Mich.)
How.Pr. Howard's Practice (N.Y.)
How.Pr.N.& . Howard's Practice New Series (N.Y.)
How.St.Tr. HoweU's State Trials (Eng.)
Hud.&B. Hudson & Brooke (Ir.)
Hughes Hughes (Ky.)
Hughes Hughes (U.S.)
Hume Hume's Decisions (Sc.)
Humphr. Humphreys (Tenn.)
Hun Hun (N1Y.)
Hurl.&Gord. Hurlstoue & Gordon (Eng.)
HurL&W. Hurlstone & Walmsley (Eng.)
Hutt. Hutton (Eng.)
Idaho Idaho
Iddings DJU). Iddings Dayton Term Beports
HI. Illinois
IU.App. Illinois Appellate Court
El.Cfr. lUinois Circuit Court
Ind. Indiana
Ind.App. Indiana AppeUate Court
Ind.T. Indian Territory
Jns.L.J. Insurance Law Journal
Int.Com.Commn. Interstate Commerce Commission
Int.ComJElep. Interstate Commerce Beports
Int.Rev.Rec. Internal Revenue Record
Iowa Iowa
[1891] Ir. Law Beports [1891] Irish
Ir.Ch. Irish Chancery
Ir.C.L. Irish Common Law
Ir.EccL Irish Ecclesiastical Beports
Ired. IredeU (N.C.)
Ir.Eq. Irish Equily
Ir.LawBep. Irish Law Reports
IrXaw &Eq. Irish Law and Equity Beports
Ir.B.1894. Irish Law Beports for year 1894
Ir.R.Clx Irish Beports Common Law
Ir.R.Eq. Irish Beports Equity
Irv.Just. Irvine's Justiciary Cases (Eng.)
Jae. Jacob (Eng.)
Jac.&W. Jacob & Walker (Bng.)
J.Bridgm. John Bridgman (Eng.)
J.&G. Jones & Carey (Ir.)
Jebb &B. Jebb & Bourke (Ir.)
Jebb O.C. Jebb's Crown Cases (Ir.)
Jebb&S. Jebb & Symes (Ir.)
Jeff. Jefferson (Va.)
Jenk. Jenkins (Eng.)
J.J.Marsh, J. J. ^rshaU (%•)
J.&L. Jones & La Touche (Eng.)
Johns. Johnson (Eng.)
Johns. Johnson (N.Y.)
Johns.Cas. Johnson's Cases (N.Y.)
Johns.0h. Johnsonfs Chancery (N.Y.) *
Johns.V.C. Johnson's English Vice-ChanceUors
(Eng.)
Johns.&H. Johnson & Hemming (Eng.)
Jones Exch. Jones Exchequer (Ir.)
Jones T. Sir Thomas Jones' English King's
Bench Beports
Jones W. Sir William Jones' English Kong's
Bench Beports
Jones&Spen. Jones & Spencer (N.Y.)
Jcmrn.Jur. Journal of Jurisprudence (Pa.)
JP. Justice of Peace (Eng.)
Jur. Jurist <Eng.) m
Jur.N.S. Jurist New Series (Eng.)
JustLJEL Justices' Law Reporter (Pa.)
XIT
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
K
Leigh &0.
Leon.
Kames Dec.
Kames Eluckt
Kames' Decisions (Sc.)
Kames' Elucidation (Sc.)
Lev.
Lew.C.C.
Kames Rem.Dee.
Kames' Remarkable Decisions (Sc.)
T^?
Kames SeLDec.
Kan.
Kames' Select Decisions (Sc.)
Kansas
Liberian L.
T H-4-
Kan.Appv
Kansas Appeals
JLtltt.
Jjitt.
Kay
Kay&J.
[1917JK.B,
Kay (Eng.)
Kay & Johnson (Eng.)
Law Reports [1917] King's Bench
Litt.Sel.Cas,
L.JAdm.
Keane &Gr.
(Eng.)
Keane & Grant (Eng.)
L.J.Bankr.
Keb.
Keble (Eng.)
L.J.Ch.
Keen
Keen (Eng.)
Keilw.
Kel.C.C.
Keilway (Eng.)
Kelvng's Crown Cases (Eng.)
L.J.Ch.O.S.
Kelly
Kelyng, J.
Kelly (Ga.)
Kelyng's English Crown Cases
LJ.C.P.
Kelynge, W»
Kelynge's Chancery (Eng.)
T TP PO S
Koyes
Keyes (N.Y.)
ij.u . v.Jr.\j«O<
Keyl.
K.&G.
Keilwey (Eng.)
Keane & Grant (Eng.)
L.J.EccL
Kilk.
Kilkerran's Decisions (Sc.)
T, T TfJ'e/»h
Kirby
Kirby (Conn.)
JLf.w .JKAl.ll.
Knapp
Knajjp&O.
Knapp (Eng.)
Knapp & Ombler (Eng.)
L.J.Exch.O.S.
Kn.&Moo.
Knapp & Moore (Eng.)
L.J.K.B.
Knox
Knox (N.S.Wales)
Kiiox&F.
Kiiip
Knox & Fitzhardinge (JXT-S. Wales)
Kulp (Pa.)
L.J.K.B.O.S.
Ky.
Kentucky
L.J.H.O.
Ky.Dea
Kentucky Decisions
Ky.L.
ICy.Op.
Kentucky Law Reporter
Kentucky Opinions
L.J.M.C.O.S.
L.J.P.C.
L
L.J.P.D.&Adnu
L.J.P.&M.
La.
Louisiana
La.App.
La.A. (Orleans)
Louisiana Court of Appeals
Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans
L.J.Q.B.
T^ Arm.
Louisiana Annual
L.J.Hop.
Lab.
Labatf s District Court (Cal.)
Lack.Jur.
Lackawanna Jurist (Pa.)
iji &(},t.y.
Lack.Leg.N.
Lackawanna Legal News (Pa.)
U.&W.
Lack.Leg.Ree.
Lackawanna Legal Record (Pa.)
L.&M.
Lalor
Lalor's Supplement to Hill & Denio
L.M.iV^P.
(N.Y.)
IJOC.GOV.
Lanc.Bar
Lancaster Bar (Pa.)
I^olTt
Lanc.L.Rev.
Lancaster Law Review (Pa.)
Longf.&T.
Land Dec.
Land Decisions (U.S.)
Low.Cttn.Seignu
Lane
Lans.
Lane (Eng.)
Lansing (N.Y.)
Lowell
L.R.
Lans.Ch.
Lansing's Chancery Decisions (N.Y.)
L.R.A.
Latch
Latch (Eng.)
L.R.A.1915A.
Law Rep.N.8.
Law Reports New Series (N.Y.)
L.R.App.Cas.
L.O.
Lower Canada
L.&C.
Leigh & Cave (Eng.)
L.R.A.&E.
L.C.Jur.
Lower Canada Jurist
L.C.L.J.
Lower Canada Law Journal
L.R.A.N.S.
L.C.Rep.S.QtL
Lower Canada Reports Seignorial
Questions
L.R.C.C.
L.D.
Law Dictionary
L.R.Ch.
Ld.Ken.
Lord Kenyon (Eng.)
Ld.Raym.
Lord Raymond (Eng.)
L.R.C.P.
Lea
Lea (Tenn.)
Leach 0.0.
LJEd.
Leach's Crown Cases (Eng.)
Lawyers' Edition United States
L.R.Eq.
L.R.Exch.
Supreme Court
L.R.H.JU
Lee EccL
Lee's Ecclesiastical (Eng.)
Lee tHardw.
Lef.Dec.
Lee temp. Hardwicke (Eng.)
Lefevre's Parliamentary Decisions
L.R.H.L.SC.
Leg.Chron.
(Eng.)
Legal Chronicle (Pa.)
L.R.Indian App.
L.R.Ir.
Leg.Gaz.
Legal Gazette (Pa.V
L.R.P.O.
Leg.&InsJR.
LegJnt
Leg.Op.
Leg.Rec.
Legal & Insurance Reporter (Pa.)
Legal Intelligencer (Pa.)
Legal Opinions (Pa.)
Legal Record (Pa.)
L.R.P.&D,
L.R.Q.B.
Lehigh CO.LJ.
Lehigh County Law Journal (Pa.)
j.T.
Lehigh VaLLJEL
Lehigh Valley Law Exporter (Pa.)
Leigh (Va.)
iT.ols!
Leigh & Cave's English Crown Cases
Leonard (Eng.)
Levinz (Eng.)
Lewin's Crown Cases (Eng.)
Ley (Eng.)
Law Glossary
Liberian Law
Littell (Ky.)
Littleton (Eng.)
Littell's Select Cases (Ky,)
Law Journal Admiralty New Series
Law Journal Bankruptcy New Series
(Eng.)
Law Journal Chancery New Series
(Eng.)
Law Journal
Old Series
Chancery
(Eng.)
Law Journal Common Pleas New
Series (Eng.)
Law Journal Common Picas Old
Series (Eng.)
Law Journal JEcclesiastical New Series
Law Journal Exchequer New Scries
(Bng.)
Law Journal Exchequer Old Series
(Eng.)
Law Journal King's Bench New Series
(Eng.)
Law Journal King's Bench Old Series
(Eng.)
Law Journal Magistrate Cases New
Series (Eng.)
Law Journal Magistrate Cases Old
Series (Eng.)
Law Journal Privy Council New Series
(Eng.)
Law Journal Probate Divorce & Ad-
miralty New Series (Jdng.)
Law Journal Probate & Matrimonial
New Series (Eng.)
Law Journal Queen's Bench New
Series (Eng.)
Law Journal Reports (Eng.)
Llo3rd & Goold temp. Plunket (Ir.)
Lloyd & Goold temp. Sugden (Ir.)
Lloyd & Welsby (Eng.)
Lowndes & Maxwell (Eng.)
Lowndes, Maxwell & Pollack (Eng.)
Local Government (Eng.)
Loffit (Eng.)
Longfield & Townsend (Ir.)
Lower Canada Seignorial Reports
Lowell (U.S.)
Law Reports (U.S.)
Lawyers' Reports Annotated
Lawyers' Reports Annotated 1015A
English Law Reports, Appeal Cases
Law Reports Admiralty & Ecclesias-
tical (Ens.)
Lawyers' Reports Annotated New
Series
Law Reports Crown Cases (Hng.)
Law Reports Chancery Appeal Cases
(Eng.)
Law Reports Common Pleas Cases
(Eng.)
Law Reports Equity Casos (Eng.)
Law Reports Exchequer Cases "(Hug.)
Law Reports House of Lords (English
& Irish Appeal Cases)
Law Reports House of Lords (Scotch
Appeal Cases)
Law Reports Indian Appeals (Eng.)
Law Reports Irish
Law Reports Privy Council (Eng.)
Law Reports Probate & Divorce
(Eng.)
Law Reports Queen's Bench Oases
(Eng.)
Law Times (Pa.)
Law Times New Series (Pa.)
Law Times, Old Series (Eng.)
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
xni
L.T.Rep.N.S. Law Times Reports New Series
(Bng.)
Lush. Lushington's Admiralty (Eng.)
Lutw. Lutwyche (Bng.)
Lutw.Reg.Oas. Lutwyche's Registration Oases (Eng.)
Luz.Leg.Obs. Luzerne Legal Observer (Pa.)
Luz.Leg.Reg. Luzerne Legal Register (Pa.)
LyndJProv. Lyndwood's Provinciates
M
MacAPatOas. MacArthur's Patent Cases (D.O.)
MacArth. MacArthur's District of Columbia Re-
ports
MacAr.&M. MacArthur & Mackey's District of Co-
lumbia Reports
Maccl. Macclesfield (Bng.)
MacFarL MacFarlane (Sc.)
Mackey Mackey's Reports, District of Colum-
bia
MacL&R. Maclean & Robinson (Bng.)
Macn.&G. Macnaghten & Gordon (Eng.)
Macph. Macpherson (Sc.)
Macph.S.&L, Macpherson, Shirreff & Lee (Sc.)
Macq. Macqueen's Scotch Appeal Cases
Madd. Haddock (Eng.)
Madd.Ch.Pt. Maddock's Chancery Practice (Eng.)
Malloy Malloy (Ir.)
Man. Manitoba Law
Man.El.Cas. Manning's Election Cases (Eng.)
Man.Exch.Pr. Manning's Exchequer Practice (Eng.)
Man.Gr.&S. Manning, Granger, & Scott (Eng.)
ManX.J. Manitoba Law Journal
Man.&Ry. Manning & Ryland (Eng.)
Man.&Ry.Mag. Manning & Ryland's Magistrates' Gas-
Cas. es (Eng.)
Man.&S. Manning & Scott (Bng.)
Mann.Unrep.Oas. Manning's Unreported Cases (La.)
Manson Manson (Bng.)
Man.tWood Manitoba temp. Wood
March March (Bng.)
Mar.Prov. Maritime Province Reports (Can.)
Mars.Adm. Marsden's Admiralty (Bng.)
Marsh. Marshall (Bng.)
MarshJ.J. J. J. Marshall (Ky.)
Mart Martin Old Series (La.)
Mart(N.S.) Martin, New Series (La.)
Mart Martin (N.C.)
Marv. Marvel (Deli
MartN.S. Martin New Series (La.)
Mart&Y. Martin & Yerger (Tenn.)
Mason Mason (U.S.)
Mass. Massachusetts
Maule &S. Maule & Selwyn (Bng.)
Maynard (Eng.)
McAllister (U.S.)
McO, McCahon (Kan.)
McOielL McClelland (Eng.)
McOlelL&Y. McClelland & Younge (Eng.)
McCord, McOord (S.C.)
McCrary McCrary (U.S.)
McG. McGloin(La.)
McLean McLean (U.S.)
McMuL McMullan (S.O.)
Md. Maryland
Md.Cn. Maryland Chancery
Me. Maine
Mees.&Ros. Meeson & Boscpe Wng.)
Mees.&W. Meeson & Welsby (Eng.)
Meg. Megone (Eng.)
Meigs Meigs (Tenn.)
Menzies Cape
Good Hope
Meriv.
Mete.
Mete.
M.&G.
M.&EL
Mich.
Mich.NJP.
Mich.T.
Miles
Mill. Const
Menzies Cape of Good Hope
Merivale (Bng.)
Metcalf (Mass.)
Metcalfe (Ky.)
Manning & Granger (Bng.)
Murphy & Hurlstone (Eng,)
Michigan
Michigan Nisi Prius
Michaelmas Term (Bng.)
Miles (Pa.)
Mill's Constitutional (S.O.)
Mill.Dec. Miller's Decisions (U.S.)
Mffls Mills (N.Y.)
Milw. Milward (Ir.)
Minn. Minnesota
Minor Minor (Ala.)
Misc. Miscellaneous (N.Y.)
Miss. Mississippi
Miss.Dec. Mississippi Decisions
Miss.St.Cas. Mississippi State Cases
M.&M. Moody & Malkin (Bng.)
Mo. Missouri
Mo.App. Missouri Appeals
Moak Moak (Eng.)
Mo.A.R. Missouri Appeals Reporter
Mod. Modern (Bng.)
Mod.CasX.&Eq. Modern Cases at Law and Equity
(Bng.)
Molloy Molloy (Ir.)
Mon. Monaghan (Pa.)
Mont Montana
Mont Montagu (Bng.)
Mont.Bank.Rep. Montagu's English Bankruptcy Re-
ports
Mont.L.R. Montreal Law Reports (Can.)
Mont&A. Montagu & Ayrton (Bng.)
Mont&B. Montagu & Bligh (Bng.)
Mont&O. Montagu & Chitty (Bng.)
Mont.D.&DeG. Montagu, Deacon & De Gex (Bug.)
Montg.Co, Montgomery County Law Reporter
(Pa.)
Mont.&3iL Montagu & McArthur (Bng.)
Montr.Oond.Rep. Montreal Condensed Reports
Montr.Leg.N. Montreal Legal News
Montr.QS. Montreal Law Reports Queen's Bench
Montr.Super. Montreal Law Reports Superior Court
Moody C.C. Moody's Crown Gases (Eng.)
Moore C.P. Moore's Common Pleas (Eng.)
Moore Indian App.Moore's Indian Appeals (Eng.)
Moore's King's Bench (Eng.)
Moore K.B.
Moore P.O.
Moore P.C.N.S. Moore's Privy Council New Series-
Moore's Privy Council Old Series
Moore&S.
Moore&W.
Mor.Min.Rep.
Morr.
Morr.Bankr.Oas.
Morr.StOas.
Mosely
M.&P.
M.&R.
M.&Rob.
M.&S.
Mun.Corp.Cas.
Munf.
Murph.
Murr.
M.&W.
Myl.&O.
Myl.&K.
MyrJProb,
(Bng.)
Moore & Scott (Bng.)
Moore & Walker (Tei.)
Morrison's Mining Reports
Morris (Iowa)
MorrelTs Bankruptcy Cases (Bng.)
Morns' State Cases (Miss.)
Mosely (Bng.)
Moore & Payne (Bng.)
Manning & Ryland (Bng.)
Moody & Robinson (Eng.)
Maule & Selwyn (Bng.)
Municipal Corporation Cases
Munford (VaJ
Murphey (N.C.)
Murray (Sc.)
Meeson & Welsby (Bng.)
Mylne & Craig iBng.)
Nat.Bankr.Reg.
Nat.Corp.Rep.
NatL-Rep.
N.B.
N.BenL
NJBJBo.
N.O.
N.Ohipm.
NGConf
N 0 TJtek
N.B. (2d)
Neb.
Neb.(Uno&)
Nels.
NdLkbr.
Mylne & Keen (Bng.)
Myrick's Probate (CaL)
N
National Bankruptcy Register (U.S.)
National Corporation Reporter
National Law Reporter
New Brunswick
New Benloe (Eng.)
New Brunswick Equity
North Carolina
N. Chipman (Vt)
North Carolina Conference
North Carolina Term Reports
North Dakota
North Eastern Reporter .
North Eastern Reporter Second Series
Nebraska
Nebraska Unofficial
Nelson (Eng.) , ^
Kelson's Abridgment of the Common
Law
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
Nev. , Nevada
NewbAdm. Newberry's Admiralty (U.S.)
NewfoundL Newfoundland
Newf.Sel.Cas. Newfoundland Select Cases
New Eep. New Reports in all Courts (Bng.)
New Sess.Cas. New Session Cases (Eng.)
New ZeaLL. New Zealand Law
N.H. New Hampshire
N.J.Eq. New Jersey Equity
N.J.Law New Jersey Law
N.J.L.J. New Jersey Law Journal
N.J.Misc. New Jersey Miscellaneous
N.M. New Mexico
N.&M. Nevile & Manning (Eng.)
N.&Macn. Neville & Macnamara (Eng.)
Nolan Nolan (Eng.)
North. Northington (Eng.)
North.Go. Northampton County Reporter (Pa.)
Northum. Northumberland County Legal News
(Pa.)
Northumb.Co.Leg. Northumberland County Legal News
N.
Notes of Cas.
Nott & McC.
Noy
N.&P.
N.S.
N.S.Dec.
N.S.Wales
N.S.Wales L.
(Pa.)
Notes of Cases (Eng.
Nott & McCord (S.C.)
Noy (Eng.)
Nevile & Perry (Eng.)
Nova Scotia
Nova Scotia Decisions
New South Wales
.. . New South Wales Law
N.S.Wales L.R.Eq.New South Wales Law Reports Eq-
uity
N.W. North Western Reporter
N.Y. New York
N.Y.Ann.Cas. New York Annotated Cases
N.Y.City Ct. New York City Court
N.Y.Oity Ct.Suppl.New York City Court Supplement
N.Y.Civ.Proc. New York Civil Procedure
N.Y.Civ.Pr.Rep. New York Civil Procedure Reports
N.S.° 6 eP°r S'New York Code Reports, New Series
N.Y.Cr. New York Criminal
N.YXeg.Obs. New York Legal Observer
N.Y.L.Rec. New York Law Record t
N.Y.Month.L.Bul. New York Monthly Law Bulletin
N.Y.S.
N.Y.St.
N.Y.Super.
N.Y.Wkly.Dig.
O.Ben.
O.Bridgm.
Off.Gaz.
Ohio
Ohio App.
Ohio Cir.Ct.
Ohio Cir.Ct.N.S.
Ohio Cir.Dec.
Ohio Dec.
(Reprint)
Ohio FJDec.
Ohio L.J.
OhioN.P.
Ohio N.P.N.S.
Ohio O.
Ohio Prob.
Ohio S.&CJP,
Ohio St
OkL
OkLCr.
Olcott
Oliv.B.&Ii.
0'M.£H.
Ont.
OntA.
OntELCaS.
OntL.
OntLJ.
OntL.J.N.S.
OntPr.
New York Supplement
New York State Reporter
New York Superior Court
New York Weekly Digest
/
o
Old Benloe (Eng.)
Orlando Bridginan (Eng.)
Official Gazette
Ohio
Ohio Court of Appeals
Ohio Circuit Court
Ohio Circuit Court New Series
Ohio Circuit Decisions
Ohio Decisions (Reprint)
Ohio Federal Decisions
Ohio Law Journal
Ohio Nisi Prius
Ohio Nisi Prius New Series
Ohio Opinions
Ohio Probate
Ohio Superior & Common Pleas Deci-
sions
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Criminal
Olcott (U.S.)
Oliver, Beavan & Lefroy (Eng.)
O'Malley & Hardcastle (Ir.)
Ontario
Ontario Appeals
Ontario Election Cases
Ontario Law
Ontario Law Journal
Ontario Law Journal New Series
Ontario Practice
Ont.W.N.
Ontario Weekly Notes
OntW.R.
Ontario Weekly Reporter
Op.Atty.-Gen.
Opinions of Attorneys-General (U.S.)
Op.Sol.Dept
Labor
Opinions of the Solicitor for the De-
partment of Labor dealing with
Workmen's Compensation
Or.
Oregon
Orleans App.
Orleans Appeals (La.)
Overt
Over ton (Tenn.)
Owen
Owen (Eng.)
P
p.
Pacific Reporter
P.(2d)
Pacific Reporter Second Series
[1S91]P.
Law Reports [1891] Probate (Eng.)
Pa.
Pennsylvania State
Pa.Cas.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Cases
(Sadler)
Pa.Co.
Pennsylvania County Court
Pa.C.PL
Common Pleas (Pa.)
Pa.Dist
Pennsylvania District
Pa.Dist&Co.
Paige
Pennsylvania District and County
Paige's Chancery (N.Y.)
Paine
Paine (U.S.)
Pa.L.J.
Pennsylvania Law Journal
Pa.L.Rec.
Pa.L.J.R.
Pennsylvania Law Record
Clark's Pennsylvania Law Journal
Reports
Palm.
Palmer (Eng.)
Park.
Park. Or.
Parker (Eng.)
Parker's Criminal (N.Y.)
Pnrk.Exch,
Parker's Exchequer (Kng.)
Park.Ins.
Parker's Insurance (Eng.)
Pars.Eq.Oas.
Parsons' Equity Cases (Pa.)
Pa.Super.
Paton App.Cas.
Pennsylvania Superior Court
Paton's Appeal Cases (fcte.)
Patrick El.Cas.
Patrick's Election Cases (Can.)
Patt&EL
Patton & Heath (Va.)
P.D.
Law Reports Probate Division (EJng.)
P.&D.
Peake N.P.
Perry & Davison (Eng.)
Peake's Nisi Prius (Eng.)
Pearce C.C.
Pearce's Reports in Dearsly's (Bng.)
Pearson
Pearson (Pa.)
Peck
Peck (Tenn.)
Peck,E1.0as.
Peckwell's Election Cases (Eng.)
Pennew.
Pennewill (Del.)
Ponuyp.
Pennypackcr (Pa.)
Penr.&W.
Penrose & Watts (Pa.)
Perry & BJDU
Perry & Knapp Election Cases (Eng.)
Pet
PetAdm.
Peters (U.S.)
Peters' Admiralty (U.S.)
PetO.C.
Peters1 Circuit Court (U.S.)
Phil.
Phillips (Eng.) .
Phil.
Phillip (N.C.)
Phila.
Philadelphia (Pa.)
Philippine
Phillim.
Philippine
Phillimore Ecclesiastical (Eng.)
Pick.
Pickering (Mass.)
Pig.&R.
Pigott & Rod well (Eng.)
Pig.Rec.
Pigolt's Recoveries (Eng.)
Pinn.
Pinney (Wis.)
Pittsb.
Pittsburgh (Pa.)
Pittsb.Leg.J.
Pittsb.Leg.J.N.S.
Pittsburgh Legal Journal (Pa.)
Pittsburgh Legal Journal New Scries
(Pa.)
P.&K.
Perry & Knapp (Eng.)
Plowd.
Plowden (Eng.)
Pollexf.
Poph,
Pollexfen (Eng.)
Popham (Eng.)
Port
Porter (Ala.)
Posey
Posey's Un reported Cnses (Tex.)
Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico Fed.
Puerto Rico Federal
Pow.Surr.
Powers' Surrogate (N.Y.)
P.R.&D.ELCas.
Power, Rodwell & Dew's Election
Cases (Eng.)
Prec.Oh.
Precedents in Chancery (Eng.)
Pr.Edw.IsL
Prince Edward Island
Price
Price (Bng.)
Price Pr.Oas.
Price's Practice Cases (Eng.)
Prid.&0.
Pridcaux & Cole (Eng.)
Prob. [1917]
Law Reports, Probate Division (Eng.)
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
Prob.Rep.
Pr.Rep.
P.Wms.
P.UJR.
Pyke
Q.B.
[1S91]Q.B>
Q.BJX
Queensl.J.P.
Queensl.L.
Q u e ensLLJT*
Que.L.
Que.Pr.
Que.Q.B.
Que.Rev.Jud.
Que.Super.
Quincy
Rand.'
Rap.Jud.Q.C.S.
Rawle
R.C.L.
R.&Can.Cas.
R.&Can.Tr.Cas.
Redf.
Redf.&B.
Redf.R.Cas.
Redf.Surr.
Reeve EngJj.
Reports
Reprint
Rep.kFinch
Rep.t.Hard.
Rep.tHolt
Res.&Eq.Judgm.
Rev.Crit.
Rev.de Jur.
Rev.de Legis.
Rev.Leg.
Rev.Leg.N.S.
Rev.Rep.
R.I.
Rice
Rich.
Rich.OP.
Ridg.
Ridg.Ap.
Ridg.L.&S.
Ridg.P.C.
Ridg.t.Hardw.
Riley
R.&M.
RJMCharlt
Rob.
Rob.
Robb PatCas.
Robert.App.Cas.
Rob.Eccl.
Robin.App.Cas.
Rob.Wm.Adm.
Rolle
Rolle Abr.
Rolls Ct.Rep.
Rom.Cas.
Root
49 C.J.S.— b
Probate Reports (Eng.)
Practice Reports (Eng.)
Peere-Williams (Eng.)
Public Utilities Reports
Pyke (Can.)
Q
Queen's Bench (Adolphus & Ellis New
Series) (Eng.)
Law Reports [1891]
Queen's Bench
Law Reports Queen's Bench Division
(Eng.)
Queensland Justice of the Peace
Queensland Law
Queensland Law Journal
Quebec Law
Quebec Practice
Quebec Official Reports Queen's
Bench
Quebec Revised Judicial
Quebec Official Reports Superior
Court
Quincy (Mass.)
R
Randolph (Va.)
Rapport's Judiciaries de Quebec Cour
Superieure
Rawle (Pa.)
Ruling Case Law
Railway & Canal Cases (Eng.)
Railway & Canal Traffic Cases (Eng.)
Redfield's Surrogate (N.Y.)
Redfield & Bigelow's Leading Cases
(Eng.)
Redfleld's Railway Cases (Eng.)
Redfield's Surrogate (N.Y.)
Reeve's English Law
Reports (Eng.)
English Reprint
Cases temp. Finch (Eng.)
Lee's Reports tempore Hardwicke
(Eng.)
Reports tempore Holt (English Cases
of Settlement)
Reserved & Equity Judgments (N.S.
Wales)
Revue Critique (Can.)
Revue de Jurisprudence (Can.)
Revue de Legislation (Can.)
Revue Legale (Can.) .
Revue Legale New Series (Can.)
Revised Reports (Eng.)
Rhode Island
Rice (S.C.)
Richardson (S.C.)
Richardson's Practice Common Pleas
(Eng.)
Ridgeway's Reports tempore Hard-
wicke (Eng.)
Ridgeway's Appeal (Ir.)
Ridgeway, Lapp & Schoale (Ir.)
Ridgeway's Parliament Cases (Ir.)
Ridgeway temp. Hardwicke (Eng.)
Riley (S.C.)
Ryan & Moody (Eng.)
R. M. Charlton (Ga.)
Robinson (La.)
Robinson (Va.)
Robb's Patent Cases (U.S.)
Robertson's Appeal Cases (Sc.)
Robertson's Ecclesiastical (Eng.)
Robinson's Appeal Cases (Sc.)
William Robinson's Admiralty (Eng.)
Rolle (Eng.)
Rolle's Abridgment (Eng.)
Rolls' Court Reports
Romilly's Notes of Cases (Eng.)
Boot (Conn.)
Rose
Hoss Lead.Cas.
R.&R.
Russ.
Russ.&C.Eq.Cas.
Russ.Eq.Cas.
Russ.&Geld.
Russ.&M.
Ry.&M.
Salk.
Sandf.
Sandf.Ch.
Sask.L.
Saund.
Saund.&C.
Sau.&Sc.
S.AustrJi.
Sav.
Sawy.
Saxt.
[1907] S.C.
Scam.
S.C.Eq.
Seh.&Lef.
[1907]S.C.(J.)
Sc.Jur.
S.C.L.
Sc.L.Rep.
Scot L.T.
Scott
Scott NJR.
ScrJML\
Sc.Sess.Cas.
S.Ct-
S.D.
S.E.
Searle & Sm.
Sel.Cas.ClL
Seld.
Selden
Selw.
Serg.&R.
Sess.Cas.
Shan.
Shaw
Shaw&D.
Shaw Dec.
Shaw, Dunl.&B.
Shaw&M.
Sheld.
Shep.Abr.
Sheph.Sel.Cas.
Show.
Show.P.0.
Sid.
SilvA.
.Silv.Sup.
Sim.
Sim.N.S.
Sim.&St.
Skin.
Smale&G.
Smith
Smith
Smith&B.
Smith K.B.
Smith Lead.Cas.
Smith Reg.
Sm.&M.
Sm.&M.Ch.
Smythe
Sneed
So.
SoLJ.
Sp.
Spinks
Spinks
Rose (Eng.)
Ross' Leading Cases (Eng.)
Russell & Ryan Crown Cases (Eng.)
Russell (Eng.) ^
Russell's & Chesley's Equity Cases
Russell's Equity Cases (N.S.) .
Russell & Geldert, Nova Scotia
Russell & Hylne (Eng.)
Ryan & Moody (Eng.)
Salkeld (Eng.) /WVv
Sandford*s Supenor Court (N.Y.)
Sandford's Chancery (N.Y.)
Saskatchewan Law
Saunders (Eng.)
Saunders & Cole (Eng.)
Sausse & Scully (Ir.)
Soutjt Australia Law
Savile (Eng.)
Sawyer (U.S.)
Saxton (N.J.)
Sayer (Eng.)
South Carolina
Court of Session Cases (Sc.)
Scammon (I1L)
South Carolina Equity
Schoales & Lefroy (Ir.)
Court of Justiciary Cases (Sc.)
Scottish Jurist
South Carolina Law
Scottish Law Reporter
Scot Law Times
Scott (Eng.)
Scott's New Reports (Eng.)
Scranton Law Times (Pa.)
Scotch Court of Session Cases
-Supreme Court Reporter (U.S.)
South Dakota
South Eastern Reporter
Searle & Smith (Eng.)
Select Cases in Chancery (Eng.)
Selden's Notes (N.Y.)
Selden (N.Y.)
Selwyn's Nisi Prius (Eng.)
Sergeant & Rawle (Pa.)
Court of Session Cases (Eng.)
Shannon (Tenn.)
Shaw (Sc.)
Shaw & Dunlop (Sc.)
Shaw's Digest of Decisions (Sc.)
Shaw, Dunlop & Bell (Sc.)
Shaw & MacLean (Sc.)
Sheldon (N.Y.)
Sheppard s Abridgment
Shepherd's Select Cases (Ala.)
Shower (Eng.)
Shower's Parliament Cases (Eng*)
Siderfin (Eng.)
Silvernail's Appeals (N.Y.)
Silvernail's Supreme (N.Y.)
Simons (Eng.) .
Simons New Series (Eng.)
Simons & Stuart (Eug.)
Skinner (Eng.)
Smale & Giffard (Eng.)
Smith (Ind.)
Smith (N.H.)
Smith & Batty (Ir.)
Smith's King's Bench (Eng.)
Smith's Leading Cases (Eng.)
Smith's Registration (Eng.)
Smedes & Marshall (Hiss.)
Smedes & Marshall Chancery (Miss.)
Smythe (Ir.)
Sneed (Tenn.)
Southern Reporter
Solicitor's Journal (Eng.)
Speers (S.C.)
Spinks Admiralty (Bng.)
Spinks' Ecclesiastical and Admiralty
(Eng.)
XVI
Spinks, P.O.
Spottisw.
Spottisw.Bq.
Sprague
Stair
Stark.
Stat. at L.
Stew.
Stew.
Stew.&P.
StocktVice-Adm.
Story
Str.
Strob.
Stuart Vice-Adm.
Stu.M.&P.
Style
Sumn,
Susq.Leg.Chron.
S.W,
S.W.(2d)
Swab.
Swab.&Tr.
Swan
Swanst
TamL
Taney
Tapp.
Taunt
Taylor
T.B.Mon.
Tenn.
Tenn.Appt
Tenn.Gas.
Tenn.Oh.
Tenn.Ch.A.
Tenn.Civ.A.
TerrJU
Tex.
Tex,App.
Tex.A.Giv.Gas.
Tex.Giv.App.
TexXJr.
Tex.Suppl.
Tex.Unrep.Cas.
Thach.Cr.
Thomps.&0.
Thomps.Gas.
Tinw.
T.Jones
TXJEfc.
T.M.R.
T.&M.
Toth.
T.R.
TranscrA.
T.Raym.
Tread.0onst
TreasDec.
Tr.&H.Pr.
Trint.T.
Truem.Bq.Oas.
Tuck.Sel,Oas.
Tuck.Surr,
T,U.P.Charlt
Turn.&R.
Tyler
Tyrw,
Tyrw.&CL
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
Splnks' Prize Cases (Eng.)
Spottiswoode (Sc.)
Spottiswoode's Equity (Sc.)
Sprague (U.S.)
Starkie Nisi Prius (Eng.)
United States Statutes at Large
Stewart (Ala.)
Stewart's Reports (N.S.)
Stewart & Porter (Ala.)
Stockton's Vice-Admiralty (N.B.)
Story (U.S.)
Strange (Eng.)
Strobhart (S.C.)
Stuart's Vice-Admiralty (L.C.)
Stuart, Milne & Peddie (Sc.)
Style (Eng.)
Sumner (U.S.)
Susquehanna Legal (
Ter-
.Cham.
.OJP.
U.C.E.&A.
U.OJKJB.
Sumner .. ^ . , ,~ v
Susquehanna Legal Chronicle (Pa.)
South Western Reporter
South Western Reporter Second
Series
Swabey's Admiralty (Eng.)
Swabey & Tristram (Eng.)
Swan (Tenn.)
Swanston (Eng.)
T
Tamlyn (Eng.)
Taney (U.S.)
Tappan (Oh.)
Taunton (Eng.)
Taylor (N.C.)
T. B. Monroe (Ky.)
Tennessee
Tennessee Appeals
Unreported Tennessee Cases
Tennessee Chancery
Tennessee Chancery Appeals
Tennessee Civil Appeals
Territories Law (Northwest
ritories)
Texas
Texas Court of Appeals
White & Wilson's Civil Cases (Tex.)
Texas Civil Appeals
Texas Criminal
Texas Supplement
Posoy's Unreported Cases (Tex.)
Thachor's Criminal Cases (Mass.)
Thompson & Cook (N.Y.)
Thompson's Cases (Tenn.)
Tinwald (Sc.)
Thomas Jones (Eng.
Times Law Reports ,.
Trade Mark Reports
Temple & Mew (Bng.)
Tothill (Eng.)
Term Reports (Dnrnford & Bast)
(Bng.)
Transcript Appeals (N.Y.)
Thomas Raymond (Bng.)
Treadway Constitutional (S.C.)
Treasury Decisions (U.S.)
Troubat & Haly's Practice (Pa.)
Trinity Term (Bng.)
Trueman's Equity Cases (N.B.) ^
Tucker's Select Cases (Newfoundland)
Tucker's Surrogate (N.Y.)
T. U. P. Charlton (Ga.)
Turner & Russell (Eng.)
Tyler JVt)
Tyrwhitt (Bng.)
Tyrwhitt & Granger (Bng.)
u
Upper Canada
Upper Canada Chancery
Upper Canada Chamber
Upper Canada Common Pleas
Upper Canada Error and Appeal
Upper Canada King's Bench Reports
U.C.Q.B. Upper Canada Queen's Bench
U.C.Q.B.O.S. Upper Canada Queen's Bench
Series
U.S. United States
U.S Aviation Bep. Aviation Reports (U.S.)
U S.CLA. United States Code Annotated
Utah Utah
Va. Virginia
Va.0as. Virginia Cases
Va.Ch.Dec. Chaucory Decisions (Va.)
Va.Dec. Virginia Decisions
Van Ness Prize „ „ ,. . ~ /TT « v
Oas. Van Ness Prize Cases (U.S.)
Vaugh. Vaughan (Eng.)
Vaux, Vaux's Decisions (Pa.)
Vent. Ventris (Bug.)
Vern, Vernon's Cases (EngJ
Vern,Ch, Vernon's Chancery (Eng.)
Vern.&S. Vernon & Scriven (Ir.)
Ves. Vesey Senior (Eng.)
Ves.&B. Vesey & Beames (JBng»)
VesJr. Vesey Junior (Eng.)
Vcs.»1r.SuppL Vcscy Junior Supplement (Eng.)
VoH.SuppL VcKoy Senior Supplement (JWug.)
Viet Victorian
Vict.L. Victorian Law
VictL.T. Victorian T-AW Times
VictRep. Victorian Reports
Vict.St.Tr. Victorian State Trials
Vin.Abr. Viner's Abridgment (Bng.)
Virgin Islands Virgin Islands
Vt, Vermont
Old
Walk.
Walk.
Wall.
Woll.0.0.
WallJr.
Wall.Sr.
Wallis
Ware
Wash.
Wash.
Wash.St
WasTi.C.O.
Wash.T.
Watts
Watts&S.
W.BL
W.C.O.
Wobb,A'B.&WJ.
P.&M.
WebPatCas.
Welsh
Wend.
West
AVestLJ.
West.L.Month.
West.L.R.
WestL.T.
.^
West t.Hardw.
ri917]West.Wkly,
Whart
Wheat.
WhceLCr.
WhiteATJOead.
CasJEq.
Whitm.PatOas.
Wight
Wilcox
Willes
Wilnu
Wils.
w
Walker (Pa.)
Walker's Chancery (Mich.)
Wallace (U.S.)
Wallace (U.S.)
Wallace Junior (U.S.)
Wallace Senior (U.S.)
Wallis (Ir.)
Ware (U.S.)
Washington
Washington (Va.)
Washington State
Washington Circuit Court (U.S.)
Washington Territory
Watts (Pa.)
Watts & Sergeant (Pa.)
William Blackstone (Eng.)
Mintou- Sen house's Workmen's Com-
pensation Cases (HSug.)
Webb, A'Beckett, & Williams' Insol-
vency, Probate, and Matrimonial Re-
ports (Victoria)
Webster's Patent Cases (Bng.)
Welsh Registry Cases (Ir.)
Wendell (N.Y.)
West (Eng.)
Western Law Journal (Oh.)
Western Law Monthly (Oh.)
Western Law Reporter (Can*)
Western Law Times (Can.)
Western Reporter
West temp. Hardwicko (Bng.)
Western Weekly (Can.)
£19171 Western Weekly (Can.)
Wharton (Pa.)
Whoaton (U.S.)
Wheeler's Criminal (N.Y.)
White & Tudor's Leading Cases in Eq-
uity (Eng.)
Whitman's Patent Cases (U.S.)
Wiffhtwicke (Bng.)
Wilcox (Pa.)
Willes (Bng.)
Wilmot's Notes (Bng.)
Wilson (Ind.)
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
XVII
Wils.Cn.
Wils.C.P.
Wils.P.C.
Wils.&S.
Winch
Winst.
Wis.
WJones
W.KeL
Wkly.L.Gaz.
Wkly.N.C.
Wkly.Rep.
Wms.Saund.
W.N.
Wolf.&B.
Wolf.&D.
WolL
Woodb.&M.
Woods
Woodw.
Woolw;
Words & Phrases
Wright
Wilson's Chancery (Bng.)
Wilson's Common Pleas (Eng.)
Wilson's Exchequer (Eng.)
Wilson's Privy Council (Eng.)
Wilson & Shaw (Sc.)
Winch (Eng.)
Winston (N.C.)
Wisconsin
William Jones (Eng.)
William Kelynge (E)ng.)
Weekly Law Gazette (Oh.)
Weekly Notes of Cases (Pa.)
Weekly Reporter (Eng.)
Williams Notes to Saunders' Reports
Weekly Notes (Eng.)
Wolferstan & Bristow's Election Cas-
es (Eng.)
Wolferstan & Dew's Election Cases
(Eng.)
Wollaston (Eng.)
Woodbury & Minot (U.S.)
Woods (U.S.)
Woodward's Decisions (Pa.)
Woolworth (U.S.)
Words & Phrases
Wright (Oh.)
W.Rob.
Wr.Pa.
W.Va.
W.W.Earr.
W.W.&D.
W.W.&H.
Wyo.
Wythe
Wy.&W.
Wy.W.&A'Beck.
Yates SeLCas.
Y.B.
Y.&C.Exch.
Y.&C01L
Yeates
Yelv.
Yerg.
"V 0 T
1.&J.
York Leg.Rec.
Young Adm.
Younge
William Robinson's Admiralty (Eng.)
Wright (Pa.)
West Virginia
W. W* Harrington
Willmore, Wollaston & Davidson
(Eng.)
Willmore, Wollaston & Hodges (Eng.)
Wyoming
Wythe's Chancery (Va.)
Wyatt & Webb (Viet.)
Wyatt, Webb & A'Beckett (Vict>
Yates Select Cases (N.Y.)
Year Book (Eng.)
Younge & Collyer's Exchequer (Eng.)
Younge & Collyer's Chancery (Eng.)
Yeates (Pa.)
Yelverton (Eng.)
Yerger (Tenru)
Younge & Jervis (Eng.)
York Legal Record (Pa.)
Young's Admiralty Decisions (N.S.)
Younge Exchequer (Eng.)
LAW REVIEWS AND LAW JOURNALS
A.B.A.Jour.
Am.J.IntXaw.
Am.Law S.Rev.
B.U.L.Rev.
Brooklyn L.Rev.
Calif.L.Rev.
Camb.L.J.
Chi-Kent Rev.
Cohun.L.Rev.
Oom.L.J.
Cornell L.Q.
Detroit LJRev.
DickJL.Rev.
Fed.BJuJ.
Fla.KJ.
Pordham L.Rev.
Geo.Wash.L.Rey.
GeoX.J.
1-Iarv.L.Rev;
Ia.L.Rev.
Idaho L.J*
IlLL.Rev.
Ind.L.J.
J.Am.Jud.Soc.
J.CompJjeg.
J.N.A.Referees
Bank.
J.Soc.Pub.Teach.
Law
John Marshall L.
Q.
Kan.Gity L.Rev.
L.,7.
L.Lib.J.
Law Ser.Mo.BuIL
I/aw SooJ.
American Bar Association Journal
American Journal of International
Law
American Law School Review
Boston University Law Review
Brooklyn Law Review
California Law Review
Cambridge Law Journal
Chicago-Kent Review
Columbia Law Review
Commercial Law Journal
Cornell Law Quarterly
Detroit Law Review
Dickinson Law Review
Federal Bar Association Journal
Florida Law Journal
Fordham Law Review
George Washington Law Review
Georgetown Law Journal
Harvard Law Review
Iowa Law Review
Idaho Law Journal
Illinois Law Review
Indiana Law Journal
Journal of the American Judicature
Society
Journal of the Society of Comparative
Legislation
Journal of the National Association of
Referees in Bankruptcy
Journal of the Society of Pub. Teach-
ers of Law
The John Marshall Law Quarterly
Kansas City Law Review
Kansas State Law Journal
Kentucky Law Journal
Law Journal
Law Library Journal
University of Missouri Bulletin, Law
Series
Law Society Journal
Lincoln L.Rev.
Marq.L.Rev.
Mass.L.Q.
Mercer, Beasley
L.Rev.
Mich.L.Rev.
Minn.L.Rev.
MissJLJ.
Neb.L.B.
N.J.L.J.
N.J.L.Rev.
N.Y.UJLQJtev.
Lincoln Law Review
Marquette Law Review
Massachusetts Law Quarterly
Mercer, Beasley Law Review
Michigan Law Review
Minnesota Law Review
Mississippi Law Journal
Nebraska Law Bulletin
New Jersey Law Journal
New Jersey Law Review
New York 'University Law Quarterly
Review
Notre Dame Law.Notre Dame Lawyer
N.C.L.Rev. North Carolina Law Review
Okla.S.B.J. Oklahoma State Bar Journal
Oreg.L.Rev. Oregon Law Review
PhiLLbJ. Philippine Law Journal
Rocky Mt.L.Rev. Rocky Mountain Law Review '
St. John's L.Rev. St John's Law Review
St. Louis LJRev. St. Louis Law Review (now Washing-
ton University Law Quarterly)
So.Calif .L.Rev. Southern California Law Review
Temp.L.Q. Temple Law Quarterly
Tenn.L.Rev. Tennessee Law Review
Tex.L.Rev. Texas Law Review
Tul.L.Rev. Tulane Law Review
U.CMX.Rev. University of Chicago Law Review
U.Cin.L.Rev. University of Cincinnati Law Review
U.Detroit L. J* University of Detroit Law Journal
U.Pa.L.Rev. University of Pennsylvania Law He-
view
U. of Pitts.LJElev.University of Pittsburgh Law Review
U.Toronto L.J. University of Toronto Law Journal
Va.L.Rev. Virginia Law Review
Wash.L.Rev. Washington Law Review
Wash.UX.Q, Washington University Law Quarterly
W.Va.L.Q. West Virginia Law Quarterly and The
Bar
WisXJaev« Wisconsin Law Review
Yale LJ. Yale Law Journal
LIST OF TITLES
IN
CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM
.Abandonment
Abatement and Revival
Abduction
Abortion
Absentees
Abstracts of Title
Accession
Accord and Satisfaction
Account, Action on
Accounting
Account Stated
Acknowledgments
Actions
Adjoining Landowners
Admiralty
Adoption of Children
Adulteration
Adultery
Adverse Possessiofc
Aerial Navigation
Affidavits
Affray
Agency
Agriculture
Aliens
Alteration of Instruments
Ambassadors and Consuls
Amicus Curias
Animals
Annuities
Appeal and Error
Appearances
Apprentices
Arbitration and Award
Architects
Army and Navy
Arrest
Arson
Assault and Battery
Assignments
Assignments for Benefit of
Creditors
Assistance, Writ of
Associations
Assumpsit, Action of
Asylums
Attachment
Attorney and Client
Attorney General
Auctions and Auctioneers
Audita Querela
Bail
Bailments
Bankruptcy
Banks and Banking
Barratry
Bastards
Beneficial Associations
Bigamy
Bills and Notes
Blasphemy
Bonds
Boundaries
Bounties
Breach of Marriage Promise
Breach of the Peace
Bribery
Bridges
Brokers
Building and Loan Associations
Burglary
Business Trusts
Canals
Cancellation of Instruments
Carriers
Case, Action on
Cemeteries
Census
Certiorari
Champerty and Maintenance
Charities
Chattel Mortgages
Citizens
Civil Rights
Clerks of Courts
Clubs
XIX
Colleges and Universities
Collision
Commerce
Common Lands
Common Law
Common Scold
Compositions with Creditors
Compounding Offenses
Compromise and Settlement
Concealment of Birth or Death
Conflict of Laws
Confusion of Goods
Conspiracy
Constitutional Law
Contempt
Continuances
Contracts
Contratos
Contribution
Conversion
Convicts
Copyright and Literary
Property
Coroners
Corporations
Costs
Counterfeiting
Counties
Court Commissioners
Courts
Covenant, Action of
Covenants
Creditors' Suits
Criminal Law
Crops
Culpa
Curtesy
Customs and Usages
Customs Duties
Damages
Dead Bodies
Death
Debt, Action of
LIST OF TITLES
Dedication
Deeds
Dependencies, Colonies, and
British Possessions
Depositaries
Depositions
Deposits in Court
Descent and Distribution
Detectives
Detinue
Discovery
Dismissal and Nonsuit
Disorderly Conduct
Disorderly Houses
District and Prosecuting
Attorneys
District of Columbia
Disturbance of Public Meetings
Divorce
Domicile
Dower
Drains
Druggists
Drunkards
Dueling
Easements
Ejectment
Election of Remedies
Elections
Electricity
Embezzlement
Embracery
Eminent Domain
Entry, Writ of
Equity
Escape
Escheat
Escrows
Estates
Estoppel
Evidence
Exchange of Property
Exchanges
Executions
Executors and Administrators
Exemptions
Explosives
Extortion
Extradition
Factors
False Imprisonment
False Personation
False Pretenses
Federal Courts
Fences
Ferries
Finding Lost Goods
Fines
Fires
Fish
Fixtures
Flags
Food
Forcible Entry and Detainer
Forfeitures
Forgery
Fornication
Franchises
Fraud
Frauds, Statute of
Fraudulent Conveyances
Game
Gaming
Garnishment
Gas
Gifts
Good Will
Grand Juries
Ground Rents
Guaranty
Guardian and Ward
Habeas Corpus
Hawkers and Peddlers
Health
Highways
Holidays
Homesteads
Homicide
Hospitals
Husband and Wife
Improvements
Incest
Indemnity
Indians
Indictments and Informations
Industrial Co-operative
Societies
Infants
Injunctions
Innkeepers
Insane Persons
Insolvency
Inspection
Insurance
Insurrection and Sedition
Interest
Internal Revenue
International Law
Interpleader
Intoxicating Liquors
Joint Adventures
Joint Stock Companies
Joint Tenancy
Judges
Judgments
Judicial Sales
' Juries
Justices of the Peace
Kidnapping
Landlord and Tenant
Larceny
Levees and Flood Control
Lewdness
Libel and Slander
Licenses
Liens
Limitations of Actions
Lis Pcndens
Livery Stable Keepers
Logs and Logging
Lost Instruments
Lotteries
Malicious Mischief
Malicious Prosecution
Mandamus
Manufactures
Maritime Liens
Marriage
Marshaling Assets and
Securities
Master and Servant ^
Masters* and Employers'
Associations
Mayhem
Mechanics' Liens
Mercantile Agencies
Militia
Mills
Mines and Minerals
Miscegenation
Modern Civil Law
Money Lenders
Money Lent
Money Paid
Money Received
Monopolies
Mortgages
Motions and Orders
Motor Vehicles
Municipal Corporations
Names
Navigable Waters
Ne Exeat
Negligence
Neutrality Laws
LIST OF TITLES
XXI
Newspapers
New Trial
Notaries
Notice
Novation
Nuisances
Oaths and Affirmations
Obscenity
Obstructing Justice
Officers
Pardons
Parent and Child
Parliamentary Law
Parties
Partition
Partnership
Party Walls
Patents
Paupers
Pawnbrokers
Payment
Penalties
Pensions
Pent Roads
Peonage
Perjury
Perpetuities
Physicians and Surgeons
Pilots
Piracy
Pleading
Pledges
Poisons
Possessory Warrant
Post Office
Powers
Principal and Surety,
Prisons
Private Roads
Prize Fighting
Process
Profanity
Prohibition
Property
Prostitution
Public Administrative Bodies
and Procedure
Public Lands
Public Utilities
Quieting Title
<Quo Warranto
Railroads
Rape
Real Actions
Receivers
Receiving Stolen Goods
Recognizances
Records
References
Reformation of Instruments
Reformatories
Registers of Deeds
Registration of Land Titles
Release
Religious Societies
Removal of Causes
Replevin
Reports
Rescue
Review
Rewards
Right of Privacy
Riot
Robbery
Sales
Salvage
Schools and School Districts
Scire Facias
Seals
Seamen
Searches and Seizures
Seduction
Sequestration
Set-Off and Counterclaim
Sheriffs and Constables
Shipping
Signatures
Slaves
Social Security and Public
Welfare
Sodomy
Specific Performance
Spendthrifts
States
Statutes
Steam
Stenographers
Stipulations
Street Railroads
Submission of Controversy
Subrogation
Subscriptions
Suicide
Summary; Proceedings
Sunday
Supersedeas
Taxation
Telegraphs and Telephones
Tenancy in Common
Tender
Territories
Theaters and Shows
Threats and Unlawful
Communication
Time
Torts
Towage
Towns
Trade-Marks, Trade-Names,
and Unfair Competition
Trade Unions
Trading Stamps and Coupons
Treason
Treaties
Trespass
Trespass to Try Title
Trial
Trover and Conversion
Trusts
Turnpikes and Toll Roads
Undertakings
United States
United States Commissioners
United States Marshals
Unlawful Assembly
Use and Occupation
Usury
Vagrancy
Vendor and Purchaser
Venue
War
Warehousemen and Safe
Depositaries
Waste
Waters
Weapons
Weights and Measures
Wharves
Wills
Witnesses
Woods and Forests
Work and Labor
Workmen's Compensation
CORPUS JURIS
SEGUNDUM
VOLUME FORTY-NINE
JUDGMENTS
This Title includes judicial determinations of rights of parties to proceedings in courts or jusuc<
in general, interlocutory as well as final; rendition, entry, requisites, and validity of formal judgments
more particularly of judgments in civil actions, and amendment and correction thereof; operation am
effect of judgments in respect of persons and' subject matters concluded, and of property bound by judg
ments, and liens created by entry, docketing, etc., of judgments; conclusiveness of judgments as agains
collateral attack; direct attacks on judgments by motions in arrest or to open, vacate, etc., judgments
writs of error coram nobis, etc., or by actions to set aside or restrain enforcement of judgments or fo;
other relief against them on equitable grounds; assignment of judgments; payment, satisfaction; an<
discharge of judgments; revival of judgments by scire facias, motion, eta; operation and effect o
judgments of courts of foreign states and countries; and enforcement of judgments in general, more par
ticularly actions on judgments.
Matters not in this Title, treated elsewhere in this work, see Descriptive-Word Index
Analysis
I DEFINITION, NATURE/AND KINDS, §§ 1-12
H. ESSENTIALS OP EXISTENCE, VALIDITY, AND REGULARITY OP JUDGMENT, §§ 13-6:
A. IN GENERAL, §§ 13-22
B. PROCESS, NOTICE, oir APPEARANCE, §§ 23-26
C. PARTIES, §§ 27-38
D. PLEADINGS, ISSUES, EVIDENCE, VERDICT, AND FINDINGS TO SUSTAIN JUDGMENT, §§ 39-45
E. CONFORMITY TO PRIOR PROCEEDINGS, §§ 46-61
m. FORM AND CONTENTS OP JUDGMENT, AND RELIEF AWARDED, §§ 62-86
IV. ARREST OF JUDGMENT, §§ 87-99
V. RENDITION, ENTRY, RECORD, AND DOCKETING, §§ 100-133
" See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
490.XS.-1 1
JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S.
VI. JUDGMENT BY CONFESSION, §§ 134-172
A. IN GENERAL, §§ 134-145
B. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OP CONCESSION GENERALLY, §§ 146-151
C UNDER WARRANT OR POWER off ATTORNEY, §§ 152-157
D. STATEMENT OF INDEBTEDNESS, §§ 15&-159
K PROCEDURE IN OBTAINING OR ENTERING JUDGMENT, §§ 160-167
F. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF JUDGMENT, §§ 168-172
VIL JUDGMENT ON CONSENT, OFFER, OR ADMISSION, §§ 173-186
V3H JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT, §§ 187-218
'A. IN GENERAL, §§ 187-203
B. PROCEDURE IN TAKING DEFAULT AND ENTERING JUDGMENT, §§ 204-218
IX. JUDGMENT ON MOTION OR SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS, §§ 219-227
X. AMENDING, CORRECTING, REVIEWING, OPENING, AND VACATING JUDGMENT, §§
228-340
A. JURISDICTION AND POWER GENERALLY, §§ 228-235
B. AMENDMENT AND CORRECTION, §§ 236-264
C OPENING AND VACATING, §§ 265-310
1. In General, §§ 265-285
2. Proceedings and Relief, §§ 286-310
D. WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS, §§ 311-313
E. ACTION TO REVIEW JUDGMENT, §§ 314-319
R CONFESSED JUDGMENTS, §§ 320-^27
G. JUDGMENTS BY CONSENT, OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE, AND ON MOTION OR SUMMARY PROOKKDINGS,
§§ 328-332
H. JUDGMENTS BY DEFAULT, §§ 333-340
XL EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST JUDGMENT, §§ 341-400
A. IN GENERAL, §§ 341-349
B. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF, §§ 350-376
C PROCOBSDURE, §§ 377-400
XH. COLLATERAL ATTACK, §§ 401-435
A. IN GENERAL, §§ 401-415
B. GROUNDS, §§ 416-435
XTTT. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OP JUDGMENT, §§ 436-453
A. CONSTRUCTION, §§ 436-443
B. OPERATION AND EFFECT, §§ 444-453
XIV. LIEN OP JUDGMENT, §§ 454-511
XV. ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENTS, §§ 512-530
XVI. SUSPENSION AND REVIVAL OP JUDGMENT, §§ 531-549
A. IN GENERAL, §§ 531-532
B. REVIVAL OF JUDGMENTS, §§ 533-549
XVIL PAYMENT, SATISFACTION, AND DISCHARGE OF JUDGMENT, §§ 550-584
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
2
49 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS
XVIH. ENFORCEMENT OP JUDGMENTS, §§ 585-691
Divisions XIX to End in Volume 5O
XIX. RES JUDIOATA, |§ 592-S48
A. GENERAL PEINCTPLBS, §§ 592-597
B. MERGER AND BAR off CAUSES OF ACTION AND DEFENSES, §§ 598-685
1. General Principles, §§ 598-602
2. Judgments Operative as Bar, §§ 603-625
3. Decision on the Merits, §§ 626-647
4. Causes of Action Merged or Barred, §§ 648-680
5. Defenses and Counterclaims Barred by Former Judgment, §§ 681-685
C. CONOLUSIVENESS OF ADJUDICATION, §§ 686-736
1. General Principles, §§ 686-711
2. Matters Concluded by Judgment, §§ 712-736
D. JUDGMENTS IN PARTICULAR CLASSES OF ACTIONS OB PROCEEDINGS, §§ 737-755
E. PERSONS AFFECTED BY ADJUDICATION, §§ 756-821
1. Who May Take Advantage of Bar, §§ 756-761
2. Persons Concluded by Judgments, §§ 762-821
F. PLEADING AND PROVING JUDGMENTS, §§ 822-848
XX. ACTION ON JUDGMENT, §§ 849-887
A. DOMESTIC JUDGMENTS, §§ 849-S66 ^
B. FOREIGN JUDGMENTS, §§ 867-887 ^
XXL FOREIGN JUDGMENTS, §§ 888-906
A. JUDGMENTS OF COURTS OF SISTEB STATES, §§ 888-898
B. JUDGMENTS OF STATE AND FEDEBAL COUBTS, §§ 899-903
. C. JUDGMENTS OF COUBTS OF FOBEIGN COUNTBEBS, §§ 904-906
XXIT. JUDGMENTS IN REM, §§ 907-911
Sub-Analysis
t DEFINITION, NATURE, AND KINDS— p 25
§ 1. Definitions— p 25
2. General nature— p 26
3. Entirety of judgments-?-? 27
4. Distinguished from decisions and findings — p 28.
5. Distinguished from rules and orders— p 29
6. Judgments as contracts or obligations— p 30
7. Judgments as assignments or conveyances — p 32
8. Classification and kinds— p 32
9. Judgment on issue of law— p 33
10. Judgment on issue of fact — p 34
11. — — Final and interlocutory judgments — p 35
12. Judgments in rem and in personam — p 40
IL ESSENTIALS OP EXISTENCE, VALIDITY, AND REGULARITY OF JUDGMENT— ^ p 40
A. IN GENEBAIr— p 40
§ 13. General statement— p 40
14. Statutory provisions and what law governs— p 41
15. Duly constituted court— p 41
16. Time and place— p 41
17. Judges— p 42 ^
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S.
EL ESSENTIALS OP EXISTENCE, VALIDITY, AND EECUJLAEITY OP JUDGMENT— Continued
A. IN GENERAL — Continued
§ 18. Formal proceedings — p 44
19. Jurisdiction — p 45
20. Matured cause of action — p 51
21. Definitiveness — p 51
22. Reasons for judgment — p 51
B. PROCESS, NOTICE, OB APPEARANCE— p 52
§ 23. Necessity— p 52
24. Sufficiency— p 54
25. Return and proof of service — p 65
26. Appearance — p 65
C. PARTIES— p 67
§ 27. In general— p 67
28. Judgment for or against one not a party — p 68
29. Death of party— p 71
30. Joint parties — p 74
31. Plaintiffs generally— p 74
. 32. Relief as between coplaintiffs— p 75
33. . Defendants generally— p 75
34. Contract actions — p 81
35. Tort actions— p 83
36. Joint or several judgments — p 84
37. Relief between codefendants— p 94
38. Nominal parties — p 95
D. PLEADINGS, ISSUES, EVIDENCE, VERDICT, AND FINDINGS TO SUSTAIN JUDGMENT— p 95
§ 39. Pleadings— p 95
40. Necessity and sufficiency — p 95
41. Several counts— p 100
42. Issues— p 101
43. Determination of all issues — p 101
44. Evidence— p 103
45. Verdict and findings — p 105
E. CONFORMITY TO PRIOR PROCEEDINGS — p 107
§ 46. Conformity to process — p 107
47. Conformity to pleadings aiid proofs — p 108
48. General rules— p 108
49. Limitation to relief sought by pleadings — p 111
50. Limitation and conformity to issues — p 117
51. Applications of rules in general — p 119
52. Nature and form of action — p 128
53. Grounds of action or defense — p 129
54. Amount of recovery — p 133
55.« Conformity to verdict, decision, and findings in general — j> 138
56. For and against whom — p 143
57. Amount — p 144
58. Interest— p 146
59. Judgment non obstante veredicto— p 147
60. When and for whom granted — p 148
61. «— * Motion for judgment — p 176
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
49 C.7.S. JUDGMENTS
HI. FORM AND CONTENTS OP JUDGMENT, AND BELIEF AWARDED— p 180
§ 62. In general— p 180
63. What law governs — p 183
64. Necessity of writing — p 183
65. One or more judgments in same case— p 184
66. Several causes tried together — p 186
67. Nature and extent of relief— p 186
68. Amount of recovery — p 188
69. Personal judgment in proceedings by attachment or in rem — p 188
70. Affirmative relief to defendant— p 189
71. Recitals— p 189
72. Certainty— p 191
73. Conditional judgments — p 192
74. Alternative judgments — p 193
75. Designation of parties — p 194
76. Designation of amount — p 198
77. Interest— p 199
78. Costs, allowances, and attorney's fees — p 200
79. Medium of payment — p 201
80. Description of property — p 203
81. Date— p 204
82. Provisions for enforcement — p 204
83. Exceptions and saving clauses — p 205
84. Surplusage— p 206
85. Signing by judge or clerk — p 206 *
86. Nonsuit or judgment on merits — p 207
IV. ARRBST OF JUDGMENT— p 209
§ 87. Nature of remedy— p 209
88. Grounds of arrest— p 210
89. Jurisdiction and venue — p 211
90. Process— p 211
91. Parties— p 212
924 Pleadings in general— p 212
93. Variance— p 215
94. Jury— p 215
95. Verdict and findings — p 216
96. Miscellaneous— p 217
97. Motions in arrest — p 218
98. Hearing and determination — p 220
99. Operation and effect of arrest — p 221
V. RENDITION, ENTRY, RECORD, AND DOCKETING— p 222
§ 100. Rendition generally— p 222
101. Authority and duty of court — p 223
102. Mode and sufficiency— p 224
103. Reading in open court — p 225
104. Application and order for judgment — p 225
105. On report of referee— p 227
106. Entry generally— p 229
107. Necessity— p 230
108. Authority and duty— p 232
109. Sufficiency and contents; defects and irregularities— p 234
110. Book or place of entry — p 235
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
5
JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S.
V. RENDITION, ENTEY, RECORD, AND DOCKETING— Continued
§ 111. Signature of record — p 236
112. — - Notice of entry— p 236
113. Time of rendition and entry — p 237
114. In vacation — p 244
115. Pendency of motion for new trial or in arrest — p 245
116. Stay of proceedings — p 246
117. Nunc pro tune entry — p 246
118. Power to order and grounds therefor in general — p 247
119. Time of entry— p 252
120. Proceedings to obtain— p 253
121. Operation and effect— p 255
122. Judgment roll or record — p 256
123. Time of making and filing — p 257
124. By whom made and filed — p 257
125. Contents and sufficiency — p 258
126. Docketing— p 262
127. Book or place of entry— p 263
128. Index— p 263
129. Filing transcript— p 263
130. Recording— p 266
131. Lost or destroyed records — p 266
132. Verity and conclusiveness of record — p 267
133. Record as notice — p 268
VL JUDGMENT BY CONFESSION— D 268
A. IN GENERAL— p 268
§ 134. Definition, nature, and distinctions — p 268
135. Classes— p 269
136. Confession after action brought — p 269
137. Confession without action — p 271
138. Debts or claims for which judgment may be confessed— p 271
139. Debts not matured — p 272
140. Contingent liabilities — p 272
141. Future advances — p 272
142. For tort— p 272
143. Who may confess judgment — p 272
144. Joint or several debtors or defendants — p 273
145. In whose favor confessed — p 273
B. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF CONCESSION GENERALLY — p 273
§ 146. In general— p 273
147. Compliance with statutory provisions generally — p 274
148. Consent or ratification of creditor — p 275
149. Process, appearance, and pleading— p 275
150. Confession after action — p 275
151. Confession without action— p 276
C UNDER WARRANT OB POWER OB« ATTOJ&NEY— p 276
§ 152. In general— p 276
153. Requisites and sufficiency of warrant or power— p 278
154. Construction and operation of warrant or power— p 280
155. Second confession under same power — p 288
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
6
49 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS
VI. JUDGMENT BY CONFESSION— Continued
C. UITDER WARRANT OR POWER OP ATTORNEY — Continued
§ 156. Revocation and defeasance— p 288
157. Confession under void or lost warrant — p 289
D. STATEMENT OF INDEBTEDNESS — p 289
§ 158. Nature and necessity— p 289
159. Requisites and sufficiency — p 290
E. PROCEDURE IN OBTAINING OR ENTERING- JUDGMENT — p 294
§ 160. In general— p 294
161. Jurisdiction and authority — p 295
162. Necessity and sufficiency of proof — p 297
163. Affidavit as to bona fides of confession— p 298
164. Nature, form, and requisites of judgment in general — p 299
165. Entry of judgment — p 300
166. Time of entry— p 301
167. Amount of judgment— p 303
F. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OP JUDGMEMNT — p 304
§ 168. In general— p 304
169. As release or waiver of defects — p 305
170. Presumptions supporting judgment — p 306
171. Effect of invalidity— p 306
172. Estoppel to deny validity— p 307
VET. JUDGMENT ON CONSENT, OFFEB> OR ADMISSION— p 308
§ 173. Consent— p 308
174. Right and authority to consent — p 309
175. Sufficiency of consent or agreement — p 311
176. Entry of judgment— p 312
177. Form and sufficiency of judgment — p 313
178. Construction, operation, and effect — p 314
179. Offer— p 317
180. Authority to offer— p 318
181. Form and sufficiency of offer — p 318
182. Acceptance or rejection, and withdrawal of offer — p 319
183. Entry of judgment— p 320
184. Construction, operation, and effect — p 320
185. Admission in pleading — p 321
186. Submission on agreed statement of facts — p 323
VEX JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT— p 324
A. Isr GENEBAL— p 324
§ 187. What constitutes judgment by default— p 324
188. Constitutional and statutory provisions7-p 326
189. Actions in which authorized — p 326
190. In whose favor default may be taken— p 327
191. Against whom default may be taken — p 328
192. Jurisdiction in general — p 331
193. Pleadings to sustain judgment — p 336
194. Amendment— p 340
195. Grounds for judgment— p 341
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
7
JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S.
VHI. JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT— Continued
A. IN GENERAL — Continued
§ 196. Default of appearance— p 341
197. Withdrawal of appearance— p 342
198. Absence from trial or other proceeding — p 343 .
199. Default in pleading— p 343
200. Operation and effect of default and judgment — p 355
201. Default as admission — p 357
202. Right to notice of, and participation in, further proceedings — p 360
203. Waiver of default— p 361
B. PBOCEDTTBE IN TAKING DEFAULT AND ENTERING JUDGMENT — p 362
§ 204. Power of court in general— p 362
205. Authority and duty of clerk— p 363
206. Preliminary entry of default — p 365
207. Time for taking default and entering judgment — p 366
208. Application for judgment — p 370
209. Bond or recognizance on taking judgment — p 372
210. Evidence— p 372
211. Proof of jurisdiction*! facts— p 373
212. Proof of default— p 373
213. Proof of cause of action— p 374
214. Hearing, determination, and relief — p 376
215. Form and requisites of judgment — p 380
216. Final or interlocutory — p 381
217. Recitals and record— p 382
218. Office judgments— p 384
IX. JUDCtMENT ON MOTION OR SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS— p 385
§ 219. In general— p 385
220. Cases in which allowed— p 388
221. Against whom judgment may be rendered — p 406
222. Procedure in general — p 407
223. Notice— p 409
224. Motion— p 412
225. Affidavits and other evidence — p 413
226. Hearing and determination; relief awarded — p 429
227. Form, requisites, and entry of judgment — p 432
3L AMENDING, CORRECTING, REVIEWING, OPENING, AND VACATING JUDGMENT— p 433
A. JURISDICTION AND POWER GENERALLY— p 433
§ 228. In general— p 433
229. During term— p 436
230. After expiration of term — p 438
231. Where terms abolished— p 445
232. At chambers or in vacation — p 445
233. Authority of clerk— p 446
234. Judgments subject to amendment or vacation — p 446
235. Jurisdiction of particular courts and judges — p. 447
B. AMENDMENT AND CORRECTION— p 447
§ 236. In general— p 447
237. Clerical and formal changes — p 449
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
8
49 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS
X. AMENDING, CORRECTING, REVIEWING, OPENING, AND VACATING JUDGMENT— Con-
tinued
B. AMENDMENT AND CORRECTION — Continued
§ 238. Judicial and substantial changes — p 451
239. Particular amendments and corrections — p 455
240. Supplying omissions generally — p 455
241. Striking out improper or erroneous entries — p 455
242. Recitals in general — p 455
243. Conforming judgment to verdict or findings — p 456
244. Parties— p 457
245. Process and appearance — p 458
246. Relief awarded in general — p 458
247. Amount of recovery and allowance of interest — p 459
248. Costs and allowances — p 461
249. Other errors or defects— p 462
250. Procedure and reliefr— p 464
251. Jurisdiction — p 466
252. Time for application — p 466
253. Parties— p 467
254. Notice— p 467
255. Contents and sufficiency of application — p 469
256. Evidence; source of amendment or correction — p 470
257. — — Hearing and determination in general — p 472
258. Allowing amendment nunc pro tune — p 473
259. — — Discretion of court— p 475
260. Imposition of terms — p 475
261. Order— p 476
262. Mode of making amendments — p 476
263. Operation and effect in general — p 476
264. Rights of third persons— p 477
C. OPENING AND VACATING — p 478
1. In General— $ 478
§ 265. In general— p 478
266. Right to and grounds for relief — p 479
267. Invalidity of judgment in general — p 480
268. Irregularity of judgment in general — p 484
269. Fraud or collusion — p 486
270. Perjury— p 489
271. Violation of agreement — p 490
272. Defenses to action — p 491
273. Newly discovered evidence — p 493
274. Errors of law— p 493
275. Errors of fact— p 495
276. Defects and objections as to parties— p 496
277. Defects and objections as to pleadings — p 497 ,
278. Unauthorized, inadvertent, improvident, or premature entry— p 499
,279. Disobedience of order of court or other misconduct of party or coun-
sel—p 499
280. Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, casualty or misfor-
tune— p 500
281. Other grounds— p 510
282. Defenses to relief— p 511
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
40 C.J.S.- 2 9
JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S.
X. AMENDING, CORRECTING-, REVIEWING, OPENING, AND VACATING- JUDGMENT— Con-
tinued
C OPENING AND VACATING — Continued
1. In General — Continued
§ 283. Other remedies available— p Sll
284. Waiver and estoppel — p 512
285. Assignment of judgment or rights thereunder— p 513
2. Proceedings and Relief — p 513
§ 286. Nature and form of remedy — p 513
287. Vacation on court's own motion — p 521
288. Time for application — p 523
289. Requisites and sufficiency of application — p 533
290. Meritorious cause of action or defense in general— p 53S
291. Proposed answer — p 539
292. Answer and other pleadings — p 539
293. Parties; persons by and against whom proceedings may be brought — p 539
294. Notice or process — p 543
295. Affidavits on application — p 544
296. Counter-affidavits — p 545
297. Evidence— p 545
298. Status of judgment pending application — p. 548
299. Hearing and determination in general — p 548
300. Discretion of court— p 552
301. Relief awarded— p 554
302. Partial vacation— p 555
303. Terms and conditions — p 555
304. Findings— p 556
305. Order— p 557
306. Operation and effect in general — p 557
307. Restitution— p 560
308. Objections and exceptions — p 560
309. Vacation and review of order — p 560
310. Liabilities on bonds given in proceedings to vacate — p 561
D. WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS — p 561
§ 311. In general — p 561
312. When writ lies— p 562
313. Proceedings and relief — p 568
E. ACTION TO REVIEW JUDGMENT — p 572
§ 314. In general— p 572
315. Grounds of action and judgments re viewable — p 574
316. Jurisdiction and procedure generally — p 575
317. Pleading and evidence — p 575
318. Hearing, determination, and relief — p 577
319. Review and costs — p 577
F. CONPBSSBD JUDGMENTS — p 578
§ 320. Amendment— p 578
321. Opening and vacating — p 578
322. Jurisdiction and authority — p 582
323. Grounds— p 583
324. Meritorious defenses — p 586
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
10
49 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS
X. AMENDING, CORRECTING-, REVIEWING, OPENING, AND VACATING JUDGMENT--Con-
tinued
F. CONFESSED JUDGMENTS — Continued
§ 325. Affidavits and other evidence — p 589
326. Hearing, determination, and relief — p 593
327. Operation and effect of opening or vacating— p 597
G. JUDGMENTS BY CONSENT, OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE, AND ON MOTION OR SUMMARY PBQCEED-
INGS — p 598
§ 328. Consent judgments — p 598
329. Amendment— p 598
330. Opening or vacating — p 599
331. Judgments on offer and acceptance — p 604
332. Summary judgments — p 605
H. JUDGMENTS BY DEFAULT — p 605
§ 333. Opening, amending, and vacating generally — p 605
' 334. Right to and grounds for opening or vacating — p 608
335. Judgment on constructive service — p 641
336. Showing meritorious defense — p 642
337. Procedure and relief — p 650
338. Proceedings in cause operating to open default — p 688
339. Proceedings after opening default — p 688
340. Defenses available— p 689
XL EQUITABLE BELIEF AGAINST JUDGMENT— p 690
A. IN GENERAL — p 690
§ 341. Nature of remedy and right to relief in general — p 690
342. Jurisdiction — p 694 .
343. Existence of or resort to other remedy; inadequacy of remedy at law —
p 695
344. Persons entitled to relief— p 700
345. Persons against whom relief available — p 701
346. Judgments against which relief may be granted — p 701
347. By confession or on consent or offer — p 703
348. By default— p 703
349. Meritorious cause of action or defense — p 703
B. GROUNDS K>R RELIEF — p 706
§ 350. In general— p 706
351. Invalidity of judgment — p 709
352. Want of or defects in process or service— p 710
353. False return of service — p 711
354. Unauthorized appearance — p 712
355. Payment or satisfaction of judgment — p 712
356. Errors and irregularities — p 713
357. Defects or objections as to parties or pleadings — p 714
358. Objections to evidence— p 715
359. Error in amount of judgment or relief granted — p 715
360. Irregular rendition or entry — p 716
361. Defenses not interposed in former action — p 716
362. .Equitable defenses— p 720
363. Excuses for not defending— p 720
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
11
JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S.
XI. EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST JUDGMENT— Continued
B. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF — Continued
§ 364. Ignorance of facts or law — p 722
365. Mistake or surprise — p 723
366. Accident or misfortune — p 725
367. Excusable neglect— p 726
368. Negligence or misconduct of counsel — p 727
369. Matters determined in original action — p 729
370. Compelling set-off or reduction of damages — p 730
371. Fraud, perjury, collusion, or other misconduct— p 732
372. Fraud or concealment — p 732
373. Collusion— p 745
374. Perjury and subornation of perjury — p 745
375. Violation of agreement — p 748
376. Newly discovered evidence — p 749
C. PROCEDURE — p 751
§ 377. Form of proceedings — p 751
378. Conditions precedent — p 753
379. Time to sue and limitations — p 754
380. Defenses— p 756
381. Laches— p 757
382. Jurisdiction of particular courts — p 759
383. Venue— p 760
384. Parties— p 761
385. Process and appearance — p 764
386. Release of errors — p 764
387. Preliminary or temporary injunction — p 765
388. Pleading— p 767
389. Bill or complaint — p 767
390. Exhibits— p 776
391. Answer, motion to dismiss, and demurrer — p 776
392. Issues, proof, and variance — p 777
393. Evidence— p 778
394. Pleadings as evidence — p 785
395. Trial or hearing— p 786
396. Dismissal — p 787
397. Judgment or decree, and relief awarded — p 787
398. Review and costs— p 790
399. Operation and effect of injunction — p 790
400. Damages on dissolution of injunction— p 791
XH. COLLATBEAL ATTACK— p 792
A* " IN GENERAL— p 792
§ 401. General rule— p 792
402. To what judgments and courts rule applies— -p 798
403. By confession or on -consent or offer — p 800
404. By default— p 800
405. In criminal cases — p 801
406. Judgments and orders in special proceedings — p 802
407. Judgments of particular courts or tribunals— p 802
408. What constitutes direct or collateral attack— p 805
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
12
49 C: J. S. JUDGMENTS
XTL COLLATERAL ATTACK— Continued
A. IN GENERAL — Continued
§ 409. Proceedings to enforce judgment — p 813
410. Proceedings to prevent enforcement of judgment — p 814
411. Separate action against party or officer — p 816
412. Parties affected by rule against collateral attack — p 817
413. Parties and privies — p 817
414. Third persons in general — p 818
415. Creditors — p 820
B. GROUNDS — p 820
§ 416. Invalidity of judgment generally — p 820
417. Insufficient or illegal cause of action — p 820
418. Legal disability of parties— p 821
419. Death of party before judgment — p 821
420. Disqualification of judge — p 821
421. Jurisdictional defects — p 822
422. Want of or defects in process or service — p 828
423. Defects in return or proof of service — p 830
424. Unauthorized appearance — p 831
425. Presumptions as to jurisdiction — p 831
426. Recitals of Jurisdictional facts — p 843
427. Decision of court as to* its own jurisdiction — p 849
428. Errors and irregularities — p 851
429. Defects and objections as to parties — p 853
430. Defects and objections as to pleadings — p 854
431. Irregularities in procedure — p 855
432. Objections to evidence — p 856
433. — Defects in entry or contents of judgment — p 857
434. Fraud, collusion, or perjury — p 859
435. Defenses available in original action — p 862
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OP JUDGMENT— p 862
A. CONSTRUCTION — p 862
§ 436. In general— p 862
437. Recitals — p 869
438. Pleadings— p 870
439. Verdict or findings — p 871
440. Parties— p 871
441. Issues— p 872
442. Recovery and relief — p 873
443. Conflict in record — p 874
B. OPERATION AND EFFECT — p 875
§ 444. In general— p 875
445. Conflicting judgments — p 876
446. Time of taking effect— p 876
447. Conditions and alternative provisions — p 877
448. Extraterritorial operation — p 878
449. Void and voidable judgments — p 878
450. Partial invalidity— p 881
451. Validating void judgment — p 882
452. Ratification and estoppel — p 883
453. Acceptance by prevailing party of part of judgment — p 884
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
13
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
33V. LDSN OP JUDGMENT— p 884
§ 454. In general— p 884
455. Nature of lien— p 885
456. Control of lien— p 887
457. Amount of lien— p 887
458. What judgments create lien— p 887
459. Decrees in equity— p 888
460. Organization and character of court— p 889
461. Statutory requirements in general — p 889
462. Transcript or abstract— p 889
463. Recording, docketing, and indexing judgment— p 896
464. Indexing— p 898
465. Sufficiency to create lien— p 898
466. Commencement of lien— p 902
467. Lien of transferred judgment— p 904
468. Necessity of issue of execution — p 904
469. Judgment or amendment nunc pro tune — p 905
470. Effect of stay of execution — p 906
471. Property affected by lien — p 906
472. Nature of property — p 906
473. Location of property — p 908
474. Property previously transferred— p 909
475. Property fraudulently conveyed — p 910
476. Lands instantaneously seized — p 910
477. After-acquired property— p 911
478. Estate or interest affected by lien — p 912
479. Equitable interests in general — p 916
480. Interests of parties to executory contract of sale— p 918
481. Trust estates and legal titles— p 920
482. Leaseholds— p 922
483. Priority of liens— p 923
484. Between judgments — p 923
485. Between judgment and conveyances and other liens — p 926
486. Postponement of lien— p 938
487. Proceedings for determination of priority — p 940
488. Transfer of property subject to lien— p 941
489. Duration of lien— p 944
490. As against junior judgments — p 946
491. Death of judgment debtor— p 946
492. Extending lien— p 947
493. Issue and levy of execution — p 947
494. Revival of judgment — p 948
495. Suit to enforce lien or to subject property; action on judgment— p 949
496. Absence of debtor from state — p 949
497. Agreement of parties — p 950
498. Matters preventing enforcement of judgment — p 950
499. Loss, release, or extinguishment of lien — p 951
500. By release— p 953
501. Payment or satisfaction of judgment— p 953
502. Sale under execution — p 954
503. Stay of execution — p 954
504. Injunction against judgment — p 955
505. Receivership— p 955
506. Opening or vacating judgment — p 955
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
14
9 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS
XIV. LIEN OF JUDaMENT— Continued
§ 507. Waiver and estoppel— p 955
508. Destruction, removal, or concealment of property— p 956
509. Appeal or writ of error — p 956
510. Remedies of creditor after termination of lien— p 957
511. Enforcement of lien— p 957
XV. ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENTS— p 961
§ 512. Assignability of judgments — p 961
513. Future judgments— p 963
514. Persons who may assign or purchase — p 963
515. Mode and sufficiency of assignment — p 964
516. Equitable assignments— p 967
517. Consideration— p 968
518. Recording— p 969
519. Operation and effect — p 969
520. Partial assignments— p 971
521. Rights and liabilities of parties— p 972
522. As to judgment debtor in general— p 972
523. As affected by notice to debtor— p 975
524. As affected by equities, defenses, and agreements between original par-
ties—p 976
525. As between assignor and assignee— p 977
526. As to third persons— p 978
527. Rights incidental to assignment— p 979
528. Effect of reversal or vacation after assignment— p 981
529. Priority of assignments— p 982
530. Setting aside assignment— p 983
XVI. SUSPENSION AND REVIVAL OF JUDGMENT— p 983
A. IN GENERAL— p 983
§ 531. Suspension or stay of proceedings— p 983
532. Dormant judgments— p 984
B. REVIVAL OF JUDGMENTS— p 989
§ 533. Necessity— p 989 .
534. Death of party— p 989
535. Right to revive— p 991
535. Grounds for revival— p 991
537. Who may revive— p 991
538. Against whom revival may be .had— p 992
539. Judgments which may be revived— p 994
540. Defenses or grounds of opposition— p 995
541. Jurisdiction and venue— p 999
542. Time for revival— p 999
543. Mode of revival— p 1002
544. Action to revive— p 1003
545. Action of debt— p 1004
546. Motion to revive— p 1004
547. Summons to show cause — p 1005
548. • Scire facias— p 1005
549. Operation and effect of revival— p 1019
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
15
JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S.
XVH. PAYMENT, SATISFACTION, AND DISCHARGE OP JUDGMENT— p 1021
§ 550. Persons to whom payment may be made — p 1021
551. Clerk of court or other officer — p 1022
552. Mode, medium, and sufficiency of payment — p 1022
553. Tender— p 1024
554. Payment by joint party or third person — p 1025
555. Payment by joint debtor — p 1025
556. Payment by suretjr — p 1027
557. Payment by stranger — p 1027
558. Payment by officer— p 1028
559. Evidence of payment — p 1028
560. Payment as question of law or fact — p 1034
561. Merger of judgments — p 1035
562. Assignment as extinguishment — p 1037
563. Release or discharge — p 1037
564. Joint debtors— p 1039
565. Agreement to release or satisfy — p 1040
566. Set-off of judgment against judgment — p 1041
567. Persons entitled to — p 1043
568. Judgments subject to— p 1043
569. Proceedings to obtain — p 1048
570. Operation and effect— p 1050
571. Set-off of judgment against claim — p 1050
572. Set-off of claim against judgment — p 1052
573. Satisfaction by execution or enforcement — p 1054
574. Other means of satisfaction — p 1057
575. Satisfaction of one of several judgments on same cause of action — |p 1057
576. Against different persons — p 1058
577. Operation and effect of satisfaction— p 1058
578. Recovery of payments — p 1059
579. Entry of satisfaction— p 1059
580. Satisfaction piece— p 1060
581. Proceedings to compel — p 1060
582. Actions and penalties for failure to satisfy — p 1065
583. Effect— p 1066
584. Vacation or correction — p 1066
XVULL ENFORCEMENT OP JUDGMENTS— p 1071
§ 585. In general— p 1071
586. Enforcement at law — p 1072
587. Enforcement in equity — p 1074
588. Scire facias to enforce — p 1076
589. Scire facias to obtain new execution — p 1076
590. Proceedings to make parties — p 1076 r-~ --
591. Scire facias on justice's transcript — p 1077
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
§§ 592 to End in Volume 5O
16-24
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
L DEFINITION, NATTJUE, AND KINDS
§1
§ l. Definitions
A judgment may be broadly defined as the decision
or sentence of the law given by a court or other tribunal
as the result of proceedings instituted therein; in this
sense a decision of any court is a judgment, including
courts of equity, and in a criminal case a sentence Is a
Judgment.
In its broadest sense a judgment is the decision or
sentence of the law given by a court of justice or
other competent tribunal as the result of proceed-
ings instituted therein,1 or the final consideration
and determination of a court on matters submitted
to it in an action or proceeding,2 whether or not
execution follows thereon.3 More particularly it
is a judicial determination that, on matters submit-
1. N.J. — Corpus Juris cited in Dor-
man v. Usbe Building & Loan
Ass'n, 180 A. 413, 415, 115 N.J.Law
837.
Pa. — Corpus Juris cited in In re
Kruska's Estate, 7 Pa.Dist & Co.
273, 275, 7 Nor thumb. L.J. 281.
33 C.J. p 1047 note 1.
Particular kinds of judgments see
infra §§ 8-12.
Similar definitions
(1) The affirmance by law of legal
consequences attending a proved or
admitted set of facts. — Berg v. Berg,
132 P.2d 871, 872, 56 Cal.App.2d 495.
(2) The conclusion of law on facts
found, or admitted by the parties, or
upon their default in the course of
the suit.
Ky. — Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth, 61
S.W.2d 879, 880. 250 Ky. 21.
N.J. — Ross v. C. D. Mallory Corpo-
ration, 37 A.2d 766, 768, 132 N.J.
Law 1.
N.C.— Eborn v. Ellis, 35 S.E.2d 238,
240, 225 N.C. 386.
Tex.— Williams v. Tooke, Civ.App.,
116 S.W.2d 1114, 1116, error dis-
missed.
33 C.J. p 1047 note 1 [b] (7).
(3) The Judicial determination or
sentence of a court on a matter
within its jurisdiction.
U.S.— U. S. v. Hark, Mass., 64 S.Ct.
359, 361, 320 U.S. 531, 88 L.Ed.
290.
Md.— Schmeizl v. Schmeizl, 42 A.2d
106, 112.
(4) The final decision or sentence
of the law rendered by a court with
respect to a cause within its juris-
diction and coming legally before
it as the result of proper proceedings
rightly instituted.
Mass. — Morse v. O'Hara, 142 N.E.
40, 41, 247 Mass. 183.
Okl.— Prayer v. Grain, 163 P.2d 966,
968.
(5) The final determination of the
rights of the parties.
Okl.— Protest of Gulf Pipe Line Co.
of Oklahoma, 32 P.2d 42, 43, 168
Okl. 136 — Dresser v. Dresser, 22
P.2d 1012. 1025, 164 Okl. 94.
Utah. — Patterlck v. Carbon Water
Conservancy Dist., 145 P.2d 502,
507.
(6) The final sentence of the law
on matter at issue in the case as
presented by the record. — G. Am-
sinck & Co. v. Springfield Grocer Co.,
C.C.A.MO., 7 P.2d 855, 858.
(7) The pronouncement of a judge
on issues submitted to him. — Bell
Grocery Co. v. Booth, 61 S.W.2d 879,
880, 250 Ky. 21.
(8) What the court pronounces. —
Linton v. Smith, 154 S.W.2d 643, 645,
137 Tex. 479 — De Leon v. Texas Em-
ployers Ins. Ass'n, Tex.Civ.App., 159
S.W.2d 574, 575, error refused — Lew-
is v. Terrell, Tex.Civ.App., 154 S.W.
2d 151, 153, error refused — Jones v.
Sun Oil Co., Civ.App,, 145 S.W.2d
615, 619, reversed on other grounds
153 S.W.2d 571, 137 Tex. 353— Cor-
bett v. Rankin Independent School
Dist., Tex.Oiv.App., 100 S.W.2d 113,
115.
(9) A number of cases have fol-
lowed Blacks tone's definition of a
judgment as the sentence of the law
pronounced by the court upon the
matter contained in the record.
U.S.— Karl Kiefer Mach. Co. v. TJ. S.
Bottlers Machinery Co., 108 F.2d
469, 470.
111. — People ex rel. Toman v. Crane,
23 N.E.2d 337, 3'39, 372 111. 228—
Blakeslee's Storage Warehouses v.
City of Chicago, 17 N.E.2d 1, 3, 369
111. 480, 120 A.L.R. 715.
Tex. — Williams v. Tooke, Civ.App.,
116 S.W.2d 1114, 1120, error dis-
missed.
33 C.J. p 1047 note 1 [a].
(10) Other similar definitions.
U.S. — Allegheny County v. Maryland
Casualty Co., C.C.A.Pa., 132 F.2d
894, 897, certiorari denied 63 S.Ct
981, 318 U.S. 787, 87 L.Ed. 1154.
111. — General Electric Co. v. Gellman
Mfg. Co., 48 N.E.2d 451, 318 111.
App. 644.
Ky. — Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth, 61
S.W.2d .879, 880, 250 Ky. 21.
Miss.— Welch v. Kroger Grocery Co.,
177 So. 41, 42, 180 Miss. 89.
N.C. — Lawrence v. Beck, 116 S.E.
424, 426, 185 N.C. 196.
Ohio.— State ex rel, Curran v.
Brookes, 50 N.E.2d 995, 998, 142
Ohio St 107.
Tex. — Jackson v. Slaughter, Civ.App.,
185 S.W.2d 759, 761, refused for
want of merit — Davis v. Hemphill,
Civ.App., 243 S.W. 691, 693.
Wis. — In re Wisconsin Mut Ins. Co.,
6 N.W.2d 33.0, 331, 241 Wis. 394,
certiorari denied Hinge v. Duel, 63
25
S.Ct. 1157, 319 U.S. 747,' 87 L.Ed.
1703.
33 C.J. p 1047 note 1 [b].
Synonymous terms
(1) The term "judgment" compre-
hends all decrees and final orders,
rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction, which determine the
rights of parties affected thereby. —
In re Frey's Estate, 40 N.E.2d 145»
148, 139 Ohio St. 354—33 C.J. p 1047
note 1 [c] (5).
(2) Other synonymous terms. —
Samuel Goldwyn, Inc. v. United Ar-
tists Corporation, C.C.A.Del.t 113 F.
2d 703, 706—33 C.J. p 1047 note 1
CcL
Mythical case
An attempt to retain the right to-
pass on the merits of a mythical
case not then in existence, and which
will exist as an independent suit,,
when and if it comes into existence,
is not a "judgment" as that term
is legally defined. — Goldsmith v.
Salkey, 112 S.W.2d 165, 169, 131 Tex.
139.
2. U.S.— Karl Kiefer Mach. Co. v.
U. S. Bottlers Machinery Co.; C.C.
A.I11., 108 F.2d 469, 470.
111. — People ex rel. Toman v. Crane,
23 N.E.2d 337, 339, 372 111. 228—
Blakeslee's Storage Warehouses v.
City of Chicago, 17 N.E.2d 1, 3*
369 111. 480, 120 A.L.R. 715— Peo-
ple ex rel. Klee v. Kelly, 32 N.E.2d
923, 929, 309 111. App. 72— People-
ex rel. Keeler v. Kelly, 32 N.E.2d
922, 309 IlLApp. 133— People ex
rel. Gallachio v. Kelly, 32 N.E.2d
921, 909 IlLApp. 133— People ex
rel. Clennon v. Kelly, 32 N.E.2oT
921, 309 IlLApp. 133— People ex
rel. Salomon v. Kelly, 32 N.E.2d
920, 309 IlLApp. 133.
Tex. — Fort Worth Acid Works v.
City of Fort Worth, Civ.App., 248:
S.W. 822, 824, affirmed City of Fort
Worth v. Fort Worth Acid Works-
Co., Cora.App., 259 S.W. 919.
Similarly expressed
Ohio. — State ex rel. Curran v.
Brookes, 50 N.E.2d 995, 998, 142
Ohio St 107.
Okl.— State v. Walton, 236 P. 629r
632, 30 Okl.Cr. 416. ,
33 C.J. p 1047 note 1 [b3 (4).
3. pa,— Petition of Kariher, 181 X.
265, 270, 284 Pa, 455.
§1
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ted to a court for decision, a legal duty or liability
does or does not exist,4 or that, with respect to a
claim in suit, no cause of action exists or that no
defense exists.5
In the broad sense here denned, a decision of any,
court is a judgment,6 including courts of equity,7
admiralty,8 and probate.9 The judgment of a court
of equity or admiralty, however, as distinguished
from the judgment of a court of common law, is
generally known as a "decree."10 In a criminal
case a sentence is a judgment.11 In a narrower
sense the term "judgment" is limited to a decision
of a court of law.12
Under codes. Under most codes of procedure,
judgments are defined in substance as the final de-
termination of the rights of the parties in an ac-
tion or proceeding.13 Under codes abolishing the
distinction between actions at law and suits in eq-
uity, a decree is included in the code definition of
a judgment, and the final determination of a cause
is a judgment whether the relief granted is equita-
ble or legal.14 Indeed the terms "judgment" and
"decree" are more or less synonymous and. inter-
changeable in code practice.15
An "adjudication" is a judgment or the entry of
a decree by a court with respect to the parties in a
case.16
§ 2. General Nature
A Judgment is a judicial act which settles the is-
sues, fixes the rights and liabilities of the parties, and
determines the proceeding, and it is regarded as the
sentence of the law pronounced by the court on the ac-
tion or question before it.
A judgment is the judicial act of a court17 by
which it accomplishes the purpose of its creation.18
It is a judicial declaration by which the issues are
settled19 and the rights and liabilities of the parties
are fixed as to the matters submitted for decision.20
In other words, a judgment is the end of the law;21
its rendition is the object for which jurisdiction is
4. Wash.— In re Clark, IffS P.2d 577,
580.
B. Okl.— Frayer v. Grain, 163 P.2d
966, 968.
6. 111.— Patterson v. Scott, 33 111.
App. 348, affirmed 31 N.E. 433, 143
111. 138.
33 C.J. p 1048 note 2.
7. Gal. — Coleman v. Los Angeles
County, 182 P. 440, 180 Cal. 714.
33 C.J. p 1048 note 3.
8. U.S. — IT. S. v. Wonson, C.C.Mass.,
28 F.Cas.No.16,750, 1 Gall. 5.
9. Ohio.— In re Frey's Estate, 40 N.
E.2d 145, 148, 139 Ohio St. 354.
33 C.J. p 1048 note 5.
10. U.S. — Lamson v. Hutchings, 111.,
118 F. 321, 323, 55 C.C.A. 245, cer-
tiorari denied 23 S.Ct. 853, 189 U.
S. 514, mem, 4 L.Ed 924.
33 C.J. p 1049 note 6. .
"Decree" defined see Equity § 580.
11. Wash.— In re Clark, 163 P.2d
577, 581.
33 C.J. p 1049 note 8.
12. Cal. — Coleman v. Los Angeles
County, 182 P. 440, 180 Cal. 714.
33 C.J. p 1049 note 9.
13. U.S. — G. Amsinck & Co. v.
Springfield Grocer Co., C.C.A.Mo.,
7 F.2d 855, 858.
Ark. — Wann v. Reading Co., 108 S.
W.2d 899, 901, 194 Ark. 541.
Idaho.— State v. McNichols, 115 P.
2d 104, 107, 62 Idaho 616.
Iowa.— Whittier v. Whittler, 23 N*.W.
2d 435, 440.
Ky. — Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth, 61
S.W.2d 879, 880, 250 Ky. 21.'
I/a. — Lacour Plantation Co. v. Jewell,
173 So. 761, 763, 186 La. 1055.
Mont. — State ex rel. Meyer v. Dis-
trict Court of Fourth Judicial Dis-
trict in and fof Missoula County,
57 P.2d 778, 780, 102 Mont. 222.
N.Y. — Wood v. City of Salamanca, 45
N.E.2d 443, 445, 289 N.T. 279.
N.D. — Universal Motors v. Coman, 15
N.W.Sd 73, 73 N.D. 337.
33 C.J. p 1049 note 10.
14. Mont. — Raymond v. Blancgrrass,
93 P. 648, 36 Mont. 449, 15 L.R.A.,
tf.S., 976.
33 C.J. p 1050 note 11.
15. Wash.— Smith v. Smith, 115 P.
166, 167, 63 Wash. 288.
33 C.J. p 1050 note 12.
16. U.S. — Samuel Goldwyn, Inc. v.
United Artists Corporation, C.C.A.
Del., 113 F.2d 703, 706.
Hearing
An "adjudication" essentially im-
plies a hearing by a court, after no-
tice, of legal evidence on the factual
issue involved. — Genzer v. Fillip,
Tex.Civ.App.,- 134 S.W.2d 730, 732, er-
ror dismissed, judgment correct.
17. 111. — People ex rel. Toman v.
Crane, 23 N.E.2d 337, 339, 372 111.
228 — Blakeslee's Storage Ware-
houses v. City of Chicago, 17 N.E.
2d 1, 3, 369 111. 480, 120 A.L.R.
715.
N.J. — Dorman v. Usbe Building &
Loan Ass'n, 180 A. 413, 415, 115
N.J.Law 337.
Determination of Judge
Judgments are the solemn deter-
minations of judges on subjects sub-
mitted to them, and a judgment is
not what may be rendered, but what
is considered and delivered by the
court. — Eborn v. Ellis, 35 S.B.2d 238,
225 N.C. 386.
Fiat
'A judgment is a fiat of a court,
settling the rights of the parties,
and, however unjust, erroneous, or
26
illegal the settlement may be, the
parties can claim under it only
that which, by its terms, the judg-
ment awards. — Lacaze v. Hardee, La.
App., 7 So.2d 719, 724.
18. Okl.— Protest of Gulf Pipe Line
Co. of Oklahoma, 32 P.2d 42, 43,
168 Okl. 136.
Purpose
(1) Judgments are judicial acts
with the primary objective in view
of concluding controversies with as
high a degree of exact justice as it
is humanly possible to do. — Jackson
v. Slaughter, Tex.Civ.App., 185 S.W.
2d 759, 761, refused for want of mer-
it.
(2) Purpose of every judgment
should be to limit litigation and
clearly establish rights of parties as
found by courts. — Cameron v. Feath-
er River Forest Homes, 33 P.2d 884,
139 CaLApp. 373.
19. Tex. — Lewis v. Terrell, Civ.App.,
154 S.W.2d 151, 153, error refused.
Imposed in invitum
A judgment is usually imposed in
invitum, although it may be for the
enforcement of an indebtedness pre-
viously contracted. — Cherey v. City
of Long Beach, 26 N.E.2d 945, 282 N.
T. 382, 127 A.L.R. 1210.
Opinion and adjudication
Judgment reciting in substance
that court, considering proof and
pleadings, was of opinion and so
adjudged that defendant was indebt-
ed to plaintiff in certain sum with
interest and costs was "judgment." —
Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth, 61 S.W.2d
879, 250 Ky. 21.
20. Utah. — Adams v. Davies, 156 P.
2d 207, 209.
21. Kan.— Corpus Juris auoted in
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
conferred and exercised,22 and it is the power by
means of which a liability is enforced against the
debtor's property.23 A judicial judgment is not
necessarily a judgment for money or thing enforce-
able by execution or other process; it may be a
final and conclusive determination of a status, or a
right, or a privilege, or the basis of action.2* A
judgment is neither an action nor a special proceed-
ing, but is the determination of an action or pro-
ceeding.26
A judgment is the sentence of the law on the ul-
timate facts admitted by the pleadings or proved by
the evidence.26 It is not a resolve or decree of the
court, but the sentence of the law prpnounced by
the court on the action or question before it.27 It
must be based solely on the legal rights of the liti-
gants and not on the result of the litigation.28
A judgment constitutes the considered opinion of
the court29 and is a solemn record30 and formal .ex-
pression and evidence of the actual decision of a
lawsuit.31 The precedent or draft for judgment
may not be treated as a judgment.32
Vested right of property. A judgment may con-
stitute a vested right of property in the judgment
creditor33 within the protection of constitutional
provisions discussed in Constitutional Law §§ 271-
272.
§ 3. Entirety of Judgments
A judgment is an entirety.
It has generally been held to be the rule that a
judgment must be treated as an entirety.34 The ef-
fect of this rule as requiring that a judgment stand
or fall as a whole, and the circumstances under
which a judgment which is partially invalid may be
enforced as far as it is valid, are discussed infra §
450.
Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. An-
thony, 52 P.2d 1208, 1211, 142 Kan.
670.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Wil-
liams v. Tooke, Civ.App., 116 S.W.
2d 1114. 1116, error dismissed.
23 C.J. p 1051 note 19.
A Judgment is the law's last word
in a judicial controversy.
U.S.— Karl Kiefer Mach. Co. v. TJ.
S. Bottlers Machinery Co., C.C.A.
111., 108 F.2d 469, 470.
Ala.— Hudson v. Wright, 51 So. 389,
164 Ala. 298, 137 Am.S.R. 55.
111. — People ex rel. Toman v. Crane,
28 N.B.2d 337, 339, 372 111. 228—
, Blakeslee's Storage Warehouses v.
City of Chicago, 17 N.B.2d 1, 3, 369
111. 480, 120 A.L.R. 715.
N.Y.— Steinberg v. Mealey, 33 N.Y.S.
2d 650, 263 App.Div. 479.
22. Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. An-
thony, 52 P.2d 1208, 1211, 142 Kan.
670.
Tex.— Corpus Juris quoted in Wil-
liams v. Tooke, Civ.App., 116 S.W.
2d 1114, 1116, error dismissed.
33 C.OT. p 1051 note 20.
23. Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted In.
Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. An-
thony, 52 P.2d 1208, 1211, 142 Kan.
670.
N.J.— Nichols v. Dissler, 81 N.J.Law
461, 473, 86 AmJX 219.
N.T.— Steinberg v. Mealey, 38 N.T.S.
2d 650, 263 App.Div. 479.
Tex.— Corpus Juris quoted in Wil-
liams v. Tooke, Civ.App., 116 S.W.
2d 1114, 1116, error dismissed.
Existence and enforcement of indebt-
edness
Judgment Is credit, chose in ac-
tion, or incorporeal right, which de-
clares existence of indebtedness,
fixes amount due and owing, and pro-
vides means for enforcing payment
thereof, although it does not create,
add to, or detract from debt. — Salter
v. Walsworth, La.App., 167 So. 494.
24. U.S.— In re Frischer & Co., 16
Ct.gust.App. 191.
Affirmation of liattlity
A judgment is merely the affirma-
tion of a liability, and leaves the
parties to pursue remedies provided
by law. — San Luis Power & Water
Co. v. Trujillo, 26 P.2d 537, 540. 98
Colo. 385.
25. Iowa.— Gray v. Iljff, 30 Iowa
195, appeal dismissed 14 S.Ct. 1168,
154 U.S. 589, 38 L.Bd. 1088.
"Action" as including judgment see
Actions § 1 a (1) (c).
"Proceeding" distinguished from
"judgment" see Actions § 1 h (1)
(b).
26. Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. An-
thony, 52 P.2d 1208, 1211, 142 Kan.
670.
N.C.— Lawrence v. Beck, 116 S.E. 424,
185 N.C. 196.
It is a conclusion of law from
facts proved or admitted in suit —
Bell v. State Industrial Accident
Commission, 74 P.2d 65, 157 Or. 653.
27. U.S. — G. Amsinck & Co. v.
Springfield Grocer Co., C.C.A.MO.,
7 P.2d 855.
33 C.J. p 1051 note 24.
It applies the law to past or pres-
ent facts
U.S. — Oklahoma City, Okl., v. Dolese,
C.C.A.Okl., 48 P.2d 734.
Conn. — Eastern Oil Refining Co. v.
Court of Burgesses of Wallingford,
36 A.2d 586, 130 Conn. 606.
27
28. R.I. — Cleveland v. Jencks Mfg.
Co., 171 A. 917, 54 R.I. 218.
Set-off of errors
A correct judgment cannot be pro-
duced by a set-off of errors. — Eber-
hardt v. Bennett, 137 S.E. 64, 163
Ga. 796.
29. Tex. — Jackson v. Slaughter, Civ.
App., 185 S.W.2d 759, 761, refused
jfor want of merit.
30. N.J.— Dorman v. Usbe Building
& Loan Ass'n, 180 A. 413, 415, 115
N.XLaw -337.
31. Cal. — Gossman v. Gossman, 126
P.2d 178, 185, 52 Cal.App.2d 184.
"There are two necessary elements
in any valid judgment or order of
a court; (a) The court's decision or
determination, usually evidenced by
some oral statement or pronounce-
ment of the court, but often by a
written opinion, direction or decree;
and (b) the enrollment or entry by
the clerk of the court's action, or
the essential part of it, upon the
order book or record of the court.
The first element is judicial; the
latter clerical. The former involves
discretion;, the latter obedience." —
Happy Coal Co. v. Brashear, 92 S.W.
2d 23, 28, 263 Ky. 257.
32. Ark. — Wtann v. Beading Co., 108
S.W.2d 899, 194 Ark. 541.
33. N.T. — Livingston v. Livingston,
66 N.E. 123, 173 N.T. 377. 93 Am.
S.R. 600, 61 L.R.A. 800.
33 C.J. p 1059 note 93.
34. 111.— Holer v. Kaplan, 145 N.E.
243, 31$ 111. 448— Corpus Juris cit-
ed in Coyle v. Velie Motors Cor-
poration, 27 N.E.2d 60, 63, 305 111.
App. 135.
Mo. — Neal v. Curtis & Co. Mfg. Co.,
41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo. 389.
33 C.J. p 1051 note 25.
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
§ 4. — _ Distinguished from Decisions and
Findings
As a general rule, decisions, opinions, findings, or
verdicts do not constitute a judgment or decree but
merely form the basis on which the Judgment is subse-
quently to be rendered.
As a general rule, the decisions, opinions, or find-
ings of a court,35 referee,36 administrative board,87
or committee58 do not constitute a judgment or de-
cree, but merely form the basis on which the judg-
ment is subsequently to be rendered.39 Under some
statutes, however, the word "decision" is used as the
equivalent of "judgment" and "decree,"40 and is
distinguished from the term "opinion" in that the
latter term refers to a statement of reasons on
which the decision or judgment rests.41
- A verdict is not a judgment, but only the basis
for a judgment, which may, or may not, be entered
on it.42 A finding is not a judgment any more than
is the verdict of a jury.43 Such findings or deci-
sion amount only to an order for judgment44 and
35. U.S.— -Baxter v. City and County
of Dallas Levee Improvement
Dist., C.C.A.TCX., 131 F.2d 434—
G. Amslnck & Co. v. Springfield
Grocer Co., C.C.A.MO., 7 F.2d 855
— McGhee v. Leitner, D.C.Wis., 41
F.Supp. 674.
Ala, — Cooper v. Owen, 161 So. 98, 230
Ala. 316.
Cal.— El Centro Grain Co. v. Bank of
Italy Nat. Trust & Savings Ass'n,
11 P.2d 650, 123 Cal.App. 6G4—
Hume v. Lindholm, 258 P. 1003, 85
Cal.App. 80.
Colo.— First Nat. Bank v. Mulich,
266 P. 1110, 83 Colo. 518.
Idaho. — Blaine County Inv. Co. v.
Mays, 15 P.2d 734, 52 Idaho 381.
Iowa.— Shaw v. Addison, 18 N.W.2d
796 — Creel v. Hammans, 5 N.W.2d
109, 232 Iowa 95 — In re Evans*
Estate, 291 N.W. 460, 228 Iowa 908.
La. — Delahoussaye v. I>. M. Glazer
& Co., App., 182 So. 146, reheard
185 So. 644— Miller v. Morgan's Da.
& T. R. R. & S. S. Co., 1 La.App.
267.
Me. — Jones v. Jones, 8 A.2d 141, 136
Me. 238.
Mich.— Dolenga v. Lipka, 195 N.W.
90, 224 Mich. 276.
Mont. — Corpus Juris Quoted in Con-
way v. Fabian, 89 P.2d 1022, 1028,
108 Mont. 287, certiorari denied
Fabian v. Conway, 60 S.Ct 94,
308 U.S. 578, 84 L.Ed. 484— State
ex rel. King v. District Court of
Third Judicial Dist., 86 P.2d 755,
107 Mont, 476 — Corpus Juris gnot-
ed in Galiger v. McNulty, 260 P.
401, 403, 80 Mont. 339.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited, in, Davis v.
Baum, 133 (P.2d 889, 891, 192 Okl.
85 — Lee v. Epperson, 32 P.2d 309,
168 Okl. 220.
Tex.— Permian Oil Co. v. Smith, 73
S.W.2d 490, 129 Tex. 413, 111 A.L.
R. 1152, rehearing denied 107 S.W.
2d 564, 129 Tex, 413, 111 A.L.R.
1175— Davis v. Hemphill, Civ.App.,
243 S.W. 691.
33 C.J. p 1052 note 33.
"Decision" and "opinion" of court
generally defined see Courts § 181
a.
The mental conclusion of the judge
presiding at a trial, the oral an-
nouncement of such conclusion, his
written memorandum entered in the
calendar, or the abstract entered in
the judgment docket do not consti-
tute a judgment. — Ranee v. Gaddis,
284 N.W. 468, 478, 226 Iowa 531—
Lotz v. United Food Markets, 283 N.
W. 99, 101, 225 Iowa 1397.
Actual sentence of law
Judgment purports to be actual
and absolute sentence of law, as
distinct from mere finding that one
of parties is entitled to judgment, or
from direction to effect that judg-
ment may be entered. — American
Motorists' Ins. Co. v. Central Garage,
169 A. 121, 86 N.H. 302.
An, orally expressed opinion, or
finding by a judge does not consti-
tute a judgment. — Moffott v. Lewis,
11 P.2d 397, 123 Oal.App. 307—33 C.
J. p 1052 note 33 [c].
Inconsistency
Decree was not void because find-
ings of fact and conclusions of law
were inconsistent with decretal por-
tion since findings do not constitute
the judgment. — Higley v. Kinsman,
Iowa, 216 N.W. 673.
The Judge's minutes cannot be re-
garded as the judgment or decree
rendered by the court, but are mere-
ly a memorandum of the decision
made by trial judge on his docket
for guidance of the clerk in entering
the decree on the journal. — Ex parte
Nikl'aus, 13 N.W.2d 655, 144 Neb. 503.
38. Fla. — Demens v. Poyntz, 6 So.
261, 25 Fla. 654.
33 C.J. p 1053 note 34—53 C.J. p 757
notes 32-34*
37. Md. — Dal Maso v. Board of
Com'rs of Prince George's County,
34 A.2d 464, 182 Md. 200.
38. Conn. — Cothren v. Olms ted, 18
A. 254. 57 Conn. 329.
39. U.S. — G. Amsinck & Co. v.
Springfield Grocer Co., C.C.A.Mo.,
7 F.2d 855, 858— Corpus Juris cited
in Roessler & Hasslacher Chemi-
cal Co. v. U. S., 13 Ct.Cust.App.
451, 455.
D.C. — Lambros v. Young, 145 F.2d
341, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 247. .
Idaho. — Blaine County Inv. Co. v.
Mays, 15 P.2d 734, 52 Idaho 381.
Mont.— Lewis v. Lewis, 94 P.2d 211,
109 Mont. 42 — Corpus Juris quoted
in Conway v. Fabian, 89 P.2d 1022,
1028, 108 Mont. 287, certiorari de-
nied Fabian v. Conway, 60 S.Ct 94,
28
308 U.S. 578, 84 L.Ed. 484— Corpus
Juris Quoted in Galiger v. McNul-
ty, 260 P. 401, 403, 80 Mont. 339.
N.H. — American Motorists' Ins. Co.
v. Central Garage, 169 A. 121, 86
N.H. 362.
Okl. — Moronoy v. Tannehill, 215 P.
938, 90 Okl. 224.
33 C.J. p 1053 note 36.
"Decision" synonymous with "opin-
ion"
"Decision," as used in statute pro-
viding that a decision of a depart-
ment of supreme court shall not be-
come final until thirty days after fil-
ing thereof, is synonymous with-
"opinion." — In re Brown's Guvardlan-
ship, 107 P.2d 1104, 6 Wash.2d 215.
40. U.S.— Rogers v. Hill, N.T., 53:
S.Ct. 731, 734, 289 U.S. 582, 77 L.
Ed. 1385.
41. U.S. — Rogers v. Hill, supra.
Decision based on findings
Decision of court based on findings-
within statute requiring such deci-
sion, when filed, amounts to a rendi-
tion of a judgment, which is a ju-
dicial act. — McKannay v. McKannay,
230 P. 218, 68 CaLApp. 709.
42. Del. — Nelson v. Canadian Indus-
trial Alcohol Co., 189 A. 691, 8 W.
W.Harr. 165, affirmed 197 A. 477,,
9 W.W.Harr. 184.
111. — People ex rel. Wakcfield v.
Montgomery, 6 N.B.2d 868, 365 111..
478— Mitchell v. Bareckson, 250 111.
App, 508.
N.T. — Fuentes v. Mayorga, 7 Daly
103, 104.
Utah. — Ellinwood v. Bennion, 276 P.
159, 73 Utah 563.
43. 111. — Central Republic Bank &
Trust Co. v. Bent, 281 111. App. 365.
Mont. — Corpus Juris quoted in Gali-
ger v. McNulty, 260 P. 401, 403,
80 Mont. 229.
Tex. — Davis v. Hemphill, Civ. App.,.
243 S.W. 691.
33 C.J. p 1053 note 38.
Pact findings
Although fact findings are proper,,
only decretal portion of decree ad-
judicates parties' rights.— Higley v«
Kinsman, Iowa, 216 N.W. 673.
44. Mont—Corpus Juris quoted in.
Galiger v. McNulty, 260 P. 401*
403, 80 Mont. 229.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
are subject to modification or change until embodied
in a definitive written order of the court.45
§ 5. Distinguished from Rules and Or-
ders
Judgments generally are distinguished from rules or
orders in that a judgment is the final determination of
the rights of the parties ending the suit whereas a rule
or order is an interlocutory determination of some sub-
sidiary or collateral matter, not disposing of the merits.
As a general rule, judgments are to be distin-
guished from orders or rules; one does not in-
clude the other.46 However, certain orders have
sometimes been denominated as judgments,47 and
it has been held that the character of an instru-
ment, whether a judgment or an order, is to be de-
termined by its contents and substance, and not by
its title.48 As distinguished from a judgment, an
order is the mandate or determination of the court
on some subsidiary or collateral matter arising in an
action, not disposing of the merits, but adjudicating
a preliminary point or directing some step in the
proceedings;49 and the term is commonly defined
in codes of procedure as every direction of a court
or judge, made or entered in writing, and not in-
cluded in a judgment.50 A judgment, on the other
hand, is the determination of the court on the issue
presented by the pleadings which ascertains and
fixes absolutely and finally the rights of the parties
in the particular suit with relation to the subject
matter in litigation, and puts an end to the suit51
The distinguishing characteristic of a judgment is
that it is final,52 while that of an order, when it re-
lates to proceeding in an action, is that it is inter-
locutory,53 although there are so-called interlocu-
Okl. — Lee v. Epperson, 32 P.2d 309,
168 Okl. 220.
33 C.J. p 1053 note 39.
45. Okl. — Lee v. Epperson, supra.
33 C.J. p 1053 note 40.
Reversal of oral decision
Court may enter formal written
order contrary to prior oral decision.
— State ex rel. Mountain Develop-
ment Co. v. Superior Court for
Pierce County, 67 P.2d 861, 190
Wash. 183.
46. Ala. — Corpus Juris cited in Mt.
Vernon-Woodberry Mills v. Union
Springs Guano Co., 155 So. 716,
717, 229 Ala. 91.
III.— Robinson v. Steward, 252 HI.
App. 203.
Ohio.— McMahon v. Keller, 11 Ohio
App. 410.
Okl.— Foreman v. Riley, 211 P. 495,
88 Okl. 75.
33 C.J. p 1053 note 41.
Administrative regulations pursu-
ant to statutory authority are gen-
erally legislative and do not have at-
tributes of judicial judgment or de-
cree.— Sparkman v. County Budget
Commission, 137 So. 809, 103 Fla. 242.
47. Mont. — State ex rel. Meyer v.
District Court of Fourth Judicial
Dist. in and for Missoula County,
57 P.2d 778, 102 Mont 222.
Ohio.— Continental Automobile Mut.
Ins.. Co. v. Jacksick, 188 N.E. 662,
46 Ohio App. 344.
33 C.J. p 1053 note 42.
"Final order" as defined by stat-
ute is comprehended within term
"judgment."— -Continental Automo-
bile Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jacksick, supra.
Dismissal for failure to prosecute
action
An order dismissing plaintiffs' ac-
tion for failure to bring it to trial
within five years after filing of com-
plaint was a judgment. — Colby v.
Pierce. 62 P.2d 778, 17 Cal.App.2d
Final disposition of cause
First order containing all neces-
sary recitals which, with finality,
disposes of cause, is regarded as
"judgment." — In re Method's Es-
tate, 21 P.2d 1084, 143 Or. 233.
48. Idaho.— State v. McNichols, 115
P.2d 104, 62 Idaho 616.
Mont.— State ex rel. Meyer v. Dis-
trict Court of Fourth Judicial Dis-
trict in and for Missoula County,
57 P.2d 778, 102 Mont. 222.
Or.— In re McLeod's Estate, 21 P.2d
1084, 143 Or. 233.
The word "judgment" need not *be
used in order to constitute the or-
der a judgment. — State ex rel. Head-
ley v. Industrial Commission of Ohio,
Ohio App., 67 N.E.2d 70.
49. Iowa.— Whit tier v. Whittier, 23
N.W.2d 435.
Nev.— Elsman v. Elsman, 2 P.2d 139,
54 Nev. 20, rehearing denied 3 P.
2d 1071, 54 Nev. 20.
33 C.J. p 1053 note 43.
"Order" generally defined see Mo-
tions and Orders § 1, also 42 C.J.
p 464 note 9-p 465 note 13.
Order held a finding
Order for "return of goods irre-
pleviable" was not itself a judgment,
but was a finding that defendant was
entitled to return of automobile. —
Commercial Credit Corporation v.
Flowers, 185 N.E. 30, 282 Mass. 316.
50. Iowa.— Whittier v. Whittier, 23
N,W.2d 435. . M
Okl. — Foreman v. Riley, 211 P. 495,
88 Okl. 75.
S.D.— Western Bldg. Co. v. J. C. Pen-
ney Co., 245 N.W. 909, 60 S.D. 630.
Wis. — Newlander v. Riverview Real-
ty Co., 298 N.W. 603. 610, 238 Wis.
211, 135 A.L.R. 383.
33 C.J. p 1055 note 55.
Order as to title
An order, adjudging that title of
mortgage trustee who purchased
mortgaged property at foreclosure
29
sale was merchantable, and that he
recover, from person with whom
he entered into contract for sale of
premises, damages for refusal to
complete contract, was an "order"
in a "proceeding at the foot of a
judgment", and was not a "judg-
ment" under statutory definition. —
Newlander v. Riverview Realty Co.,
supra.
51. Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Koch v. Meacham, 121 S.W.2d 279,
281, 233 Mo.App. 453.
33 C.J. p 1054 note 44 — 42 CJ. p 466
note 34.
"Judgment" defined generally see
supra § 1.
Order granting naturalization as
judgment see Aliens § 140 c.
52. Nev. — Elsman v. Elsman, 2 P.
2d 139, 54 Nev. 20, rehearing de-
nied 3 P.2d 1071, 54 Nev. 20.
N.Y. — In re Kennedy's Estate, 281
N.T.S. 278, 156 Misc. 166.
Tex. — Vacuum Oil Co. v. Liberty Re-
fining Co., Civ.App., 247 S.W. 597,
reversed on other grounds Key-
stone Pipe & Supply Co. v. Liber-
ty Refining Co., Com. App., 260 S.W.
1018.
33 C.J. p 1054 note 45.
Determination and disposition of
ease
An order which has effect of final-
ly determining rights of parties, and
finally disposing of case is "judg-
ment."— State ex rel. Meyer v. Dis-
trict Court of Fourth Judicial Dist.
in and for Missoula County, 57 P.2d
778, 102 Mont. 222.
Tax eale judgment was held "fiaal
judgment," notwithstanding recital"
therein that judgment "should be
rendered." — Griggs v. Montgomery,
Tex.Civ.App., 22 S.W.2d 688.
53. N.Y. — In re Kennedy's Estate,
281 N.Y.S. 278, 156 Misc. 166.
&3 C.J. p 1054 note 46.
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
tory judgments, as is discussed infra § 11, and final
orders, as is discussed in -the CJ.S. title Motions
and Orders § 2, also 42 CJ. p 468 notes 65-74.
A decision sustaining or overruling a demurrer
ordinarily is an order, not a judgment,54 although
there is also some authority to the contrary.55 An
order or rub ordinarily is not founded on the whole
record in the case, but is granted on a special appli-
cation to the court called a "motion;" the determi-
nation of such motion is an order, not a judgment.56
A special proceeding regularly terminates in a final
order, not a judgment,57 although the final order in
a special proceeding is in effect a judgment and is
sometimes referred to as such.58
Order for judgment. An order merely directing
or authorizing the entry of judgment in the case
does not constitute a judgment; to have this effect
it must be so worded as to express the final sentence
of the court on the matters contained in the record
and to end the case at once, without contemplating
any further judicial action.59 Orders for judgment,
however, have sometimes been deemed sufficient as
judgments.60
Order for an execution. An order of a judge to
the clerk to issue execution for a specific sum with
costs has been held equivalent to a judgment,61 al-
though there is also authority to the contrary.62
§ 6. • Judgments as Contracts or Obli-
gations
Although Judgments are sometimes regarded as con-
tracts or debts of record and as obligations enforceable
by contractual remedies, they are not true contracts or
debts in a strict sense, and are Included within those
terms as used in statutes only where such is. the intent
of the statutes.
Broadly speaking, a judgment is an obligation for
the payment of money.63 Under the classification
of all obligations into two classes, namely, those
arising ex contractu and those arising ex delicto,
and the further division of obligations ex con-
tractu into simple contracts, contracts under seal
or specialties, and contracts of record, it has been
usual to classify judgment obligations as contracts
of record.64 Judgments have been declared to be
contracts,65 and, likewise, judgments have been de-
54. Wyo. — Greenawalt v, Natrona
Impr. Co., 92 P. 1008, 16 Wyo. 226.
33 C.J. p 1054 note 49.
Interlocutory judgments on demur-
rer see infra § 11.
55. N.Y. — Bentley v. Jones, 4 How.
Pr. 336, 3 Code Rep. 37.
33 C.J. p 1054 note 50.
56. Mo. — Pence v. Kansas City
Laundry Service Co., 59 S.W.2d
633, 332 Mo. 930.
Okl.— French v. Boles, 261 P. 196,
128 Okl. 90-— In re Baptiste's
Guardianship, 256 P. 520, 125 Okl.
184.
33 C.J. p 1054 note 51.
57. N.Y.— People v. Moroney, 120 NT.
B. 149, 224 N.Y. 114.
Wls. — In re Wisconsin Mut. Ins. Co.,
6 N.W.2d 330, 241 Wis. 394, cer-
tiorari denied Hinge v. Duel, 63
S.Ct. 1157, 319 U.S. 747, 87 L.Bd.
1703.
33 C.J. p 1054 note 52.
58. N.Y. — In re Kennedy's Estate,
281 N.Y.S. 278, 156 Misc. 166.
33 C.J. p 1055 note 53.
59. U.S. — Corpus Juris quoted in G.
Amsinck & Co. v. Springfield Gro-
cer Co., C.C.A.MO., 7 F.2d 855.
Ariz. — Brewer v. Morgan, 26*3 P. 630,
33 Ariz. 225.
Cal.— Bastajian v. Brown, 120 P.2d 9,
19 Cal.2d 209— Prothero v. Superi-
or Court of Orange County, 238 P.
357, 196 Cal. 439— City of Los An-
geles v. Hannon, 251 P. 247, 79
CaLApp. 669.
Okl.— Lee v. Epperson, 32 P.2d 309,
168 Okl, 220.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in. Loper
v. Hosier, Civ.App., 148 S.W.2d
889, 891, error dismissed, judgment
correct.
33 C.J. p 1055 note 54, p 1104 note
33.
Purport
An order for a judgment is not a
judgment, because it does not pur-
port of itself to determine the
rights of the parties. — Erlcson v.
Steiner, 6 P.2d 298, 119 Cal.App. 305
—33 C.J. p 1104 note 32.
An entry in. the record, ordering
that plaintiff recover judgment from
defendant in the amount therein
stated, was not a judgment, but
merely an order for judgment. — Illi-
nois Trust & Savings Bank v. Town
of Roscoe, 194 N.W, 649, 46 S.D. 477.
Judgment nisi has no more effect
on parties' rights than verdict, be-
ing only order for entry of effective
judgment, absent intervening pro-
ceedings.— Hodgson v. Phippin, 150
A, 118, 159 Md. 97—35 C.J. p 1055
note 54 [a].
60. Ga.— Tift v. Keaton, 2 S.E. 690,
78 Ga. 235.
N.H. — Young v. Dearborn, 27 N.H.
324.
61. Ga. — Klink v. The Cusseta, 30
Ga. 504.
111.— Sears v. Sears, 8 111. 47.
62. Colo. — Hoehne v. Trugillo, 1
Colo. 161, 91 Am.D. 703.
33 C.J. p 1104 note 36.
63. La. — Holland v. Gross, App., 195
So. 828.
N.Y.— Weinstein v. McBlligott, 10 N.
30
Y.S.2d 320, 256 App.Div. 307, re-
versed on other grounds 22 NJB.
2d 171, 281 N.Y. 605.
33 C.J. p 1056 note 63.
New obligation
A judgment is not a contract or
an obligation 'of a contract but ift a
new obligation under which antece-
dent rights are to be enforced. —
Tradesmens Nat. Bank & Trust Co.
v. Floyd, 39 A.2d 728, 731, 156 Pa.
Super. 141.
Recognition of obligation
Judgment is the recognition of tho
preSxistence of a debt or obligation.
—Bailey v. Louisiana & N. W. R.
Co., 105 So. 626, 159 La. 576— Hol-
land v. Gross, La.App., 195 So. 828.
64. Iowa.— Chader v. Wilkins, 284
N.W. 183, 226 Iowa 417.
33 C.J. p 1056 notes 64, 67 [a].
65. La. — Butler v. Bolinger, 133 So.
778, 16 La.App. 397.
33 C.J. p 1056 note 65.
Judgments by confession see infra §
134 et seq.
Whether recovered for tort or on
contract, the judgment becomes a
debt which defendant is under obli-
gation to pay, and tho law implies
a promise or contract on his part
to pay it.
Cal. — Grotheer v. Meyer Rosenberg,
53 P.2d 99C, 11 Cal.App.2d ii«8.
N.Y.— Gutta -Percha & Rubber Mfg.
Co. v. City of Houston, 15 N.B.
402, 108 N.Y. 276, 2 Am.S.R. 412,
14 N.Y.Civ.Proc. 19, 20 Abb.N.Cas.
21$.
Partition Judgment from which
parties did not appeal could be in-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§6
clared to be debts66 of record,67 or specialties.68 It
is only by a legal fiction, however, and for the pur-
pose of enforcing the obligation by contractual rem-
edies, that judgments can be considered as con-
tracts.69 Thus an action on a judgment is an ac-
tion on a contract,™ irrespective of the nature of
the original transaction on which the judgment was
founded,71 and the same provisional remedies may
be had as in an action on an express contract.72
On the other hand, the essential elements of ev-
ery true contract, such as competent parties and
assent, are often wanting in judgments which usu-
ally are rendered in invitum, and often against in-
fants, lunatics, or married women.78 Accordingly it
has also been declared that judgments are not con-
tracts74 or debts76 in the strict sense of these terms.
Withing meaning of constitutional and statutory
provisions. The fact that a judgment is some-
times regarded as a contract is not conclusive on
the question whether it is a contract within the
meaning of that term as used in particular statutory
or constitutional provisions, and in all such cases
the intent of such provisions is determinative.76
Accordingly, it has been held that a judgment is a
contract within the meaning of statutes confer-
ring77 or limiting78 the jurisdiction of a court in ac-
tions on contracts, prohibiting the assignment of
choses in action not arising out of contract,79 au-
thorizing set-offs and counterclaims,80 making joint
contracts joint and several,81 and prohibiting the
issuance of process against the body in an action on
a contract.82 On the other hand, a judgment is not
a contract or debt within statutes requiring actions
on contracts to be brought in the name of the real
party in interest,88 or making trustees or stockhold-
terpreted as contract between par-
ties.— Frazier v. Hanlon Gasoline
Co., Tex.Civ.App., 29 S.W.2d 461, er-
ror refused.
Contracts of highest character
Va. — Barnes v. American Fertilizer
Co., 130 S.E. 902, 144 Va. 692.
66. Iowa. — Chader v. Wilkins, 284
N.W. 183, 226 Iowa 417.
Mo.— Vitale v. Duerbeck, 92 S.W.2d
691, 338 Mo. 556.
33 C.J. p 1056 note 66.
Judgment for tort
A judgment rendered on a cause
of action for a tort is nevertheless
a debt—State v. City of Mound City,
73 S.W.2d 1017, "325 Mo. 702—33 C.
J. p 1056 note 66 [a], [c].
A judgment is an evidence of debt.
— Oil Tool Exchange v. Schuh, 153
P.2d 976, 67 Cal.App.2d 288—33 C.J.
p 1056 note 66 [e].
67. Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in State
v. City of Mound City, 73 S.W.2d
1017, 1020, 325 Mo. 702.
33 O.J. p 1056 note 67.
68. Conn. — Barber v. International
Co., 51 A. 857, 74 Conn. 652, 92
Am.S.R. 246.
33 C.J. p 1056 note 68.
69. R.I.— Everett v. Cutler Mills,
160 A. 924, 52 R.I. 330.
33 C.J. p 1057 note 69.
70. Cal. — Corpus Juris cited in
Grotheer v. Meyer Rosenberg, 53
P.2d 996, 999, 11 Cal.App.2d 268.
Iowa. — Chader v. Wilkins, 284 N.W.
183, 226 Iowa 417.
33 C.J. p 1057 note 71.
Nature and form of action on judg-
ment generally see infra § 851.
Assuntpsit or debt
Instances of quasi or construc-
tive contracts include judgments on
which an action of assumpsit or debt
may be maintained,' according to the
circumstances, because of a promise
to pay implied by law. — Corpus Ju-
ris quoted in Caldwell v. Missouri
State Life Ins. Co., 230 S.W. 566,
569, 148 Ark. 474—13 C.J. p 245 note
70.
71. Cal. — Corpus Juris cited in
Grotheer v. Meyer Rosenberg, 53
P.2d 996, 999, 11 Cal.App.2d 268.
Iowa.— Chader v. Wilkins, 284 N.W.
183, 226 Iowa 417.
Okl.— Vaughn v. Osborne, 229 P. 467,
103 Okl. 59.
33 C.J. p 1057 note 72.
72. N.Y.— Gutta Percha & Rubber
Mfg. Co. v. City of Houston, 15
N.E. 402, 108 N.T. 276, 20 Abb.N.
Cas. 218, 14 N.T.Civ.Proc. 19.
33 C.J. p 1057 note 73.
7a U.S.— In re Ransford, Mich., 194
F. 658, 115 C.C.A. 560.
33 C.J. p 1057 note 74.
74. RJ.— Everett v. Cutler Mills,
160 A. 924, 52 R.I. 330.
33 C.J, p 1057 note 75.
Consent decree for injunction in-
volving supervision of changing con-
ditions should not be considered con-
tract.— U. S. v. Swift & Co., App.
D.C., 52 S.Ct 460, 286 U.S. 106, 76
L.Ed. 999.
75. La. — Holland v. Gross, App., 195
So. 828.
76. U.S.— Metcalf v. City of Water-
town, Wis., 9 S.Ct. ITS, 128 U.S.
586, 32 L.Ed. 543.
33 C.J. p 1058 note 77.
Judgment as contract or debt with-
in:
Constitutional:
Provisions prohibiting statutes
impairing obligation of con-
tracts see Constitutional Law
§ 350.
Or statutory provisions prohibit-
ing imprisonment for debt see
Arrest § 25 a, Executions §
413 a, i
31
Rules as to joining causes of ac-
tion see Actions § 83.
Statute of limitations see infra §
854.
Statutes regulating rate of inter-
est see Interest § 40.
77. Cal.— Wallace v. JSldredge, 27
Cal. 498— Stuart v. Lander, 16 Cal.
372, 76 Am.D. 538.
Jurisdiction of courts generally see
Courts § 242.
78. N.Y.— Crane v. Crane, 19 N.Y.S.
691.
79. Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in
State v. City of Mound City, 78
S.W.2d 1017, 1020, 325 Mo. 702.
33 C.J. p 1058 note 83.
Assignment of judgments see infra
§ 512.
80. U.S. — Rose v. Northwest Fire &
Marine Ins. Co., C.C.Or., 71 F.
649.
33 C.J. p 1058 note 84.
Contrary view
(1) A contrary rule has been fol-
lowed in Illinois. — Rae v. Hulbert, 17
111. 572.
(2) It has been said, however, that
"the weight of authority is against
the view taken by the supreme court
of Illinois." — Rose v. Northwest Fire
& Marine Ins. Co., C.C.Or., 71 F. 649,
651.
81. U.S.— Belleville Sav. Bank v.
Winslow, C.C.MO., 30 F. 488.
33 C.J. p 1058 note 87.
82. Vt — Stoughton v. Barrett, 20
Vt. 385— Sawyer v. Vilas, 19 Vt.
43.
!. Ala.— Wolffe v. Eberlein, 74 Ala.
99, 49 Am.R. 809.
33 C.J. p 1058 note 82.
Plaintiffs in .action on judgment see
infra § 857.
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ers of a corporation liable for its debts,84 or within
the meaning of married women's acts,85
§ 7. Judgments as Assignments or Con-
veyances
In the absence of a statute to the contrary, a Judg-
ment is not an assignment and ordinarily Is not effectual
to pass the title to land.
A judgment is not an assignment,86 even when
entered on confession,87 although, by statute, judg-
ments suffered under particular circumstances may
operate as an assignment for the benefit of credi-
tors.88 A judgment is not effectual to pass the title
to land,89 apart from statutory provision to that
effect,90 unless it substantially undertakes to vest
title, as by declaring that it shall operate as a deed
of conveyance, in a case where the court has juris-
diction to affect the title to land by a judgment or
decree operating in rem.91
§ 8. Classification and Kinds
Judgments have been classified with reference to
the state of the pleadings at the time of pronouncement,
and the proper style of the Judgment may also depend
on the form of the action.
Under common-law practice, judgments usually
are classified with reference to the state of the
pleadings at the time judgment is pronounced, un-
der which classification they fall into several basic
groups.92 The proper style of the judgment may al-
so depend on the form of the action, immemorial
custom having prescribed the formula of words to
be employed in the judgments rendered in certain
classes of proceedings.93
The form of judgment granted on determination
of issues of law or fact is discussed infra §§ 9, 10.
Numerous particular kinds of judgments are defined
infra this section, and there may be found elsewhere
in other connections a consideration of judgments
by confession, or judgments by cognovit actionem
and judgments by confession relicta verificatione,
discussed infra §§ 134-137, judgments on consent,
offer, or admission, discussed infra §§ 173-186,
judgments by default or nil dicit, discussed infra
§ 187, judgments of dismissal, discontinuance, non-
suit, or retraxit, discussed in Dismissal and Non-
suit §§ 1-5, judgments non obstantc vcredicto, or
judgments notwithstanding verdict, discussed infra
§§ 59-61, judgments mine pro tune, discussed infra
§§ 117-121, and judgments on the pleadings, dis-
cussed in the C.J.S. title Pleading § 511, also 49 C
J. p 779 note 29-p 780 note 48.
Irregular or erroneous judgment. An irregular
judgment is one entered contrary to the course of
the court, that is, contrary to the method of pro-
cedure and practice allowed by law in some mate-
rial respect.94 An erroneous judgment is one ren-
dered according to the course and practice of the
court, but contrary to law.95
84. U.S.— Chase v. Curtis, N.Y., 5
S.Ct. 554, 113 U.S. 452, 28 L.Ed.
1038.
Cal.— Larrabee v. Baldwin, 35 Cal.
155.
85. N.Y.— White v. Wood, 2 N.Y.S.
673, 49 Hun 381, 15 N.Y.Civ.Proc.
187.
86. Pa.— Breading, v. Boggs, 20 Pa.
• 33 37
33 c'.J. p 1059 note 95.
87. Pa, — Breading v. Boggs, supra,
Judgment by confession see infra
§§ 134-172.
88. Ky.— Laughlin v. Georgetown
First Nat. Bank, 47 S.W. 623, 103
.Ky. 742, 20 Ky.L. 354.
33 C.J. p 1059 note,97.
89. N.C.-^Proctor v. Ferebee, 36 N-
C. 143, 36 Am.D. 34.
33C.J. p 1059 note 98.
90. N.J.— Price v. Sisson, 13 N.J.
,Eq. 168.
KG.— Morris v. White, 2 S.E. 254, 96
N.C. 91.
91. Mich. — Simmons v. Conklin, 88
N.W. 625, 129 Mich. 190.
33 C.J. P 1059 note 1.
92. U.S. — Derby v. Jacques, C.C.
Mass., 7 F.Cas.No.3817, 1 Cliff. 425.
33 C,J. p 1059 note 3.
Judgments fall into four groups
under Blacksione's classification:
First, where the facts are agreed by
the parties, and the law is deter-
mined by the court, as in the case of
judgment on a demurrer; second,
where the law is admitted by the
parties and the facts are in dispute,
as in the case of judgments on ver-
dicts; third, where the facts and law
are admitted by defendant, as in
judgments by confession and de-
fault; fourth, where plaintiff is con-
vinced that the facts, or the law,
or both, are not sufficient to support
his action, as in judgments of non-
suit, retraxit, and discontinuance. —
Derby v. Jacques, C.C.Mass., 7 F.
Cas.No.3,817, 1 Cliff. 425.
Judgment against plaintiff
At common law a judgment
against plaintiff was on a retraxit,
non pros, nonsuit, nolle prosequi,
discontinuance or a judgment on an
issue found by jury in favor of de-
fendant or on demurrer. — Steele v.
Beaty, 2 S.E.2d 854, 215 N.C. 680.
93. 111.— -Jackson v. Haskell, 3 111,
565.
33 -C.J. p 1059 note 4.
Debt
111. — Jackson v. Haskell, supra.
32
94. N.M.— -EAly v. McGahon, 21 P.
2d 84, 87, 37 N.M. 240.
N.C. — Duplin County v. Ksssscll, 27
S.E.2d 448, 450, 223 N.C. 631—
Wynne v. Conrad, 17 S.E.2d 514,
518, 220 N.C. 355— Crowdcr v.
Stiers, 1 S.E.2d 353, 355, 216 N.
C. 123— Dall v. Hawkins, 189 S.E.
774, 211 N.C. 283— Hood ex rel.
Citizens' Bank & Trust Co. v.
Stewart, 184 S.E. 36, 40, 209 N.
C. 424 — Duffer v. Branson, 125 S.E.
619, 620, 188 N.C. 789.
33 C.J. p 814 note 6—34 C.J. p 508
note 3.
Irregular or erroneous judgment as
void or voidable see infra § 19.
Operation and effect of void and
voidable judgments see infra §§
449-452.
95. N.M.— Ealy v. McG'ahen, 21 P*2d
84, 87, 37 N.M. 246,
N.C.— Wynne v. Conrad, 17 S.E.2d
514, 518, 220 N.C. 355— Dail v.
Hawkins, 189 S.E. 774, 211 N.C. 283
— Hood ex rel. Citizens' Bank &
Trust Co. v. Stewart, 184 S.E. 36,
40, 209 N.C. 424— Herbert B. New-
ton & Co. v. Wilson Furniture Mfg.
Co., 174 S.E. 449, 450, 206 N.C. 533
— Wellons v. Lassiter, 157 S.B.
434, 436, 200 N.C. 474— Finger v.
Smith, 133 S.E. 186, 187, 191 N.C.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
A judgment on the merits is one rendered after
argument and investigation and when it is deter-
mined such party has a right, as distinct from a
judgment rendered on some formal or merely tech-
nical fault or by default without trial.**
Judgment nihil capiat per breve or per bittam
is the form of judgment against plaintiff in an ac-
tion either in bar or in abatement; literally, "that
he taka nothing by his writ or declaration."97
Judgment nisi. At common law, a judgment nisi
was one entered on the return of the nisi prius rec-
ord, which, according to the terms of the postea,
was to become absolute unless otherwise ordered by
the court within the first four days of the next suc-
ceeding term.98
Judgment of non pros, or non prosequitur is a
judgment of the court on motion of defendant in
a civil action in case plaintiff do.es not file his decla-
ration or replication in due time.99
i
Judgment quod bitta cassetur is the common-law
form of judgment sustaining a plea in abatement
where the proceeding is by bill, that is, by a capias
instead of by original writ; literally, "that the bill
be quashed."1
Judgment quod eat sine die is the old form of a
judgment for defendant;2 literally "that he go
without day."8
Judgment quod recuperet is a judgment in favor
of plaintiff rendered when he has prevailed on an
issue in fact or an issue in law other than one aris-
ing on a dilatory plea.*
Judgment respondeat ouster is a form of judg-
ment for plaintiff on an issue in law arising on a
dilatory plea.6 The judgment is that defendant
answer over, and, since it is not a final judgment,
the pleading is resumed and the action proceeds.5
A punitive judgment is one the purpose of which
is to inflict a penalty or punishment as distinguish-
ment from one granting a remedy.7
A self-executing judgment is a judgment that ac-
complishes by its mere entry the result sought, and
requires no further exercise of the power of the
court to accomplish its purpose.*
§9-
Judgment on Issue of Law
A judgment on a demurrer to pleadings Is on an
Issue of law and Is the same as It would have been on
an issue of fact between the parties, but a judgment
sustaining or overruling a demurrer to a plea In abate-
ment Is not of a final nature.
When the pleadings terminate in a demurrer on
either side, an issue of law is presented, and a judg-
ment on such demurrer is on an issue of law.9 On
818 — Duffer v. Branson, 125 S.E.
619, 620, 188 N.C. 789.
34 C.J. p 508 note 4—21 C.J. p 822
note 86.
When court lias Jurisdiction of the
subject matter of the action and of
the parties, a judgment giving to
one of the parties more than he
in entitled to receive is an erroneous
judgment. — McLeod v. Hartman, 253
P. 1094, 1095, 123 Kan. 110.
96. Xy. — Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth,
61 S.W.2d 879, 880, 250 Ky. 21.
97. Black L.D.
98. Black L.D.
33 C.J. p 1059 note 4 [b].
It is otherwise defined as "one
that is to be valid unless something
else should be dene within a given
time to defeat it."— U. S. v. Win-
stead, D.C.N.6., 12 F. 50, 51, 4
Hughes 464.
39. N.C.— Steele v. Beaty. 2 S.B.2d
854, 856, 215 N.C. 680.
Pa.— Beverldge v. Teeter, 14 Pa.Dist.
& Co. 498, 45 York Leg.Rec, 16, 26
Luz.Lieg.Reg. 100.
33 C.J. p 1061 note 26.
Nolle prosegnl dijrtingrnished
(1) Judgment of non pros, is not
to be confused with a nol. pros, or
nolle prosequi, by which plaintiff or
the attorney for .the state voluntari-
49 0. J.S.-3
ly declares that he will not further
prosecute a suit or indictment, or a
particular count in either. — Common-
wealth v. Casey, 12 Allen, Mass., 214,
218—33 C.J. p 1061 note 26 [bj.
(2) "Nolle proseaui" defined see
Dismissal and Nonsuit 9 4.
1. Black L.D.
33 C.J. p 1060 note 15 [a].
2. Del.— Silver v. Rhodes, 2 Del.
369, 374.
N*.J. — Hale v, Lawrence, 22 N.JXaw
72, 80.
Form of judgment generally see in-
fra 5 62.
8. Black L.D., sub verbo "Sine."
4. Ky. — Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth,
61 S.W.2d 879, 880, 250 Ky. 21.
As proper judgment on issues of law
or fact see infra 55 9, 10.
5. Black L.D.
33 C.J. p 1060 note 13 M.
6. U.S.— (Philadelphia & R. Coal &
Iron Co. v. Kever, N.T., 260 F. 534,
536, 171 C.C.A. 318, certiorari de-
nied 40 S.Ct 13, 250 U.S. 665, 63
L.Bd. 1197.
7. U.S.— In re Merchants' Stock &
Grain Co., Mo., 32 S.Ct. 339, 223
U.S. 639, 56 L.Ed. 584— In re Chris-
tensen Engineering Co., N.Y., 24 S.
Ct. 729, 194 U.S. 458, 48 L.Ed. 1072.
33
Ga. — Hancock v. Kennedy, 95 S.EL
735, 22 Ga.App. 144.
& Cal.— Feinberg v. Doe, 92 P.2d
640, 642, 14 Cal.2d 24.
Similarly expressed
(1) One where no process is re-
quired in order to fully execute it.
— Jayne v. Drorbaugh, 17 N.W. 433,
436, 63 Iowa 711—57 C.J. p 108 note
87.
(2) One which has an intrinsic ef-
fect.— Dulin v. Pacific Wood & Coal
Co., 33 P. 123, 124, 98 Cal. 304.
(3) One which is injunctions! and
prohibitive or which adjudicates the
title to property or fixes the status
of a party. — Haddlck v. Polk County
Dist Ct., 145 N.W. 943, 944, 164 Iowa
417—57 C.J. p 109 note 91.
(4) Other similar definitions see
57 C.J. p 109 notes 89, 90.
9.- Wis. — Douville v. Merrlck, 25
Wis. 688.
Judgment on:
Demurrer to:
Evidence see the C.J.S. title Tri-
al § 236, also 64 C.J. p 889
note 46-p 390 note 58.
Pleadings see the C.J.S. title
Pleading § 274, also 49 C.J. p
461 note 94-p 465 note 81.
Pleadings see the C.J.S. title
Pleading S 511, also 49 C.J. p
779 note 29-p 780 note 48.
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
demurrer to any of the pleadings which go to the
action, the judgment for either party is the same as
it would have been on an issue of fact joined on
the same pleading, and found in favor of the same
party.10 At common law the judgment for plaintiff
on a demurrer to any of the pleadings in chief is
quod recuperet, that is, that he recover;11 that for
defendant is quod eat sine die, that is, that he go
hence without day.12 As is discussed in the CJ.S.
title Pleading § 274, also 33 C.J. p 1060 notes 10-12,
and 49 C.J. p 461 note 4-p 465 note 81, the judg-
ment is final unless leave to amend or to plead over
is given, but, since the granting of such leave is
almost a matter of course, it is not now usual to
enter final judgment on demurrer unless the party
fails or refuses to amend or to plead over, as the
case may be.
On demurrer to a plea in abatement, if the de-
murrer is sustained, the judgment is not final but
is respondeat ouster, that is, that he answer over;13
final judgment is rendered only on failure to plead
further.1* If the demurrer or other objection is
overruled, and the dilatory plea is held sufficient in
law, the judgment is that the writ or declaration be
quashed,15 but this rule of the common law has
been changed by some statutes permitting plaintiff
after overruling of his demurrer to take issue on
the facts.1*
§ 10. Judgment on Issue of Fact
Final Judgment on an issue of fact, if for the plain-
tiff, is that he recover, but Judgment for the defendant
on a fact Issue raised in a plea In abatement is merely
that the writ or declaration be quashed.
The final judgment on an issue of fact, taken on
the declaration, or a plea in bar, if for plaintiff, is
quod recuperet, that is, that he recover j1* if for
defendant, the judgment is nihil capiat per breve or
per billam, that is, that he take nothing by his decla-
ration or writ.18 Where an issue of fact on a plea
in abatement is found in favor of defendant, the
judgment must be cassetur breve or billa, that is,
that the writ or declaration be quashed, as where a
demurrer to such a 'plea is decided in his favor ; the
judgment cannot be nihil capiat, or on the merits,
because the plea is not in bar of the action.19
NX N.J.— Hale v. Lawrence, 22 N.J.
Law 72.
JT.Y. — Nachod v. Hindley, 103 1T.Y.S.
801, 118 App.Div. 658.
11. Wis.— Douvllle v. Merrlck, 25
Wis. 688.
33 C.J. p 1059 note 8.
"Judgment quod recuperet" defined
see supra 5 8.
12. HI.— People, for Use of O'Far-
rell v. Johnson, 215 IlLApp. 580.
33 C.J. p 1060 note 9.
"Judgment quod eat sine die" defined
see supra § 8.
Judgment for costs
Where the petition failed to state
a cause of action, the court did not
err In sustaining a general demurrer
thereto and in rendering a Judgment
against plaintiff for the cost of the
action. — Franks v. Adolph Kempner
Co., 217 P. 848, 91 Okl. 289.
Question of abatement
Where demurrer, as may some-
times be done, is treated as plea in
abatement on ground that action is
prematurely brought, judgment
should show that decision was based
on Question of abatement, otherwise
it will be presumed to be a decision
on merits.— Smith v. City of Daven-
port, 201 N.W. 47, 198 Iowa 1295.
13. Ala.— Cravens v. Bryant 3 Ala.
278— State v. Allen, 1 Ala. 442.
Ark. — Fulcher v. Lyon, 4 Ark. 445 —
Renner v. Reed, 3 Ark. 339.
Conn. — Nichols v. Seacock, 1 Root
286 — Fitch v. Lothrop, 1 Root 192
DeL — Spencer v. Dutton, 1 Harr. 75,
HL — Branigan v. Rose, 8 111. 123, fol-
lowed In 8 111. 130 — Bradshaw v
Morehouse, 6 111. 395— F. H. Earl
Mfg. Co. v. Summit Lumber Co.,
125 IlLApp. 391.
Ind.— Clarke v. Kite, 5 Blackf. 167—
Atkinson v. State Bank, 5 Blackf.
84— Lambert v. Lagow, 1 Blackf.
388.
Ky.— Hay v. Arberry, 1 J.J.Marsh. 95
—Moore v. Morton, 1 Bibb 234.
Me.— McKeen v. Parker, 51 Me. 389.
Mass.— Parks v. Smith, 28 N.B. 1044,
155 Mass. 26.
Miss.— Drane v. Board of Police of
Madison County, 42 Miss. 264— Lee
v. Dozier, 40 ^iss. 477— Besancon
v. Shirley, 17 'Miss. 457— Lang v.
Fatheree, 15 Miss. 404— Beaty v.
Harkey, 10 Miss. 563.
Mo.— Wilson v. Atwood, 4 Mo. 366.
N.H.— Trow v. Messer, 32 N.H. 361.
N.X — Garr v. Stokes, 16 N.J.Law 403.
N.C.— Casey v. Harrison, 13 N.C. 244.
Pa. — Bauer v. Roth, 4 Rawle 83 —
McCabe v. U. S., 4 Watts 325.
Tenn. — Straus v. Weil, 5 Coldw. 120
— Rainey & Henderson v. Sanders,
4 Humphr. 447— McBee v. State,
Meigs 122.
Tex. — Ritter v. Hamilton, 4 Tex. 325.
Wis. — Anderson v. Rountree, 1 Pinn.
115.
33 C.J. p 1060 note 13.
"Judgment respondeat -ouster" de-
fined see supra § 8.
. There are exceptions to the rule
where the plea contains matter
pleadable only in abatement but
commences or concludes in bar, or
where matter in abatement is plead-
ed puis darrein continuance. In
such cases the judgment is final. —
Turner v. Carter, 1 Head, Tenn., 520.
34
14. Ala.— Massey v. Walker, 8 Ala.
167.
15. Del.— Silver v. Rhodes, 2 Del.
369.
49 C.J. p 244 note 7.
'Judgment quod billa cassetur" de-
fined see supra § 8.
Suit prematurely "brought
Trial court, after sustaining plea
in abatement on 'ground that suit
had been prematurely brought, com-
mitted error in rendering judgments
that plaintiff take nothing by the
suit, since such judgments without
restrictions as to future prejudice
to relitigate the same subject matter
would afford a basis for interposing
a plea of "res judicata" should such
suit be refiled in the future and
proper judgment was one of dismis-
sal which would preclude an adjudi-
cation on the merits. — Reed v. Sta-
ley, Tex.Civ.App., 139 S.W.2d 851.
16. Ala.— Chilton v. Harbin, 6 Ala.
171.
17. U.S.— National Ace. Soc. v. Spi-
ro, Tenn., 78 F..774, 24 C.C.A. 334,
certiorari denied 18 S.Ct 944, 168
U.S. 708, 42 L.Ed. 1211. .
33 C.J. p 1060 note 18.
"Judgment quod recuperet" defined
see supra § 8.
18. Black L.D.
19. Fla. — McLendon v. Lurton-
Hardaker Co., 91 So. 113. 83 Fla.
263.
33 C.J. p 1060 note 20.
Dismissal of cause
When a plea of abatement Is sus-
tained to plaintiff's action, the gen-
eral order is one dismissing the
49 0. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
§11
Where, however, the verdict is against defendant,
the judgment for plaintiff is quod recuperet, or that
he recover, and not respondeat ouster.20
§11. Final and Interlocutory Judg-
ments
a. In general
b. When judgment becomes final
a. In General
A final judgment Is one which disposes of the cause
both as to the subject matter and the parties as far as
the court has power to dispose of It, while an interlocu-
tory Judgment Is one which reserves or leaves some fur-
ther question or direction for future determination; but
whether a Judgment Is flnat depends somewhat on the
purpose for which, and the standpoint from which, It Is
being considered.
Judgments may generally be classified as either
final or interlocutory.21 In determining whether a
judgment is "final," no hard and fast definition or
test applicable to all situations can be given, since
finality depends somewhat on the purpose for
which, and the standpoint from which, the judgment
is being considered, and it may be final for one pur-
pose and not for another.22 Generally, however, a
final judgment is one which disposes of the cause
both as to the subject matter and the parties as far
as the court has power to dispose of it,23 while an
cause and the dismissal order is ef-
fective only as long: as the cause of
abatement continues to exist. — Zar-
sky v. Moss, Teac.Civ.App., 193 S.W.
2d 245.
Necessity of trial on facts
Disposition, on pleas in abatement,
of claims based on negligence with-
out a trial on the facts was error.—
Rose v. Baker, 183 S.W.2d 438, 143
Tex. 438.
ao. 111.— F. H. Earl Mfg. Co. v. Sum-
mit Lumber Co., 125 IlLApp. 391.
Miss. — Coleman v. Bowman, 99 So.
465, 135 Miss. 137— McNeely v.
Tazoo & M. V. R. Co.. 81 So. 641,
119 Miss. 897.
33 C.J. P 1060 note 21—49 C.J. P 244
note 13.
Liability established
The court's decision overruling de-
fendant's plea in abatement on fact
issue establishes defendant's liabil-
ity and deprives it of trial on mer-
its, so as to entitle plaintiff to final
judgment, unless Judge permits de-
fendant to answer over by special
order or action equivalent to such
order. — Krinsky v. Stevens Coal
Sales Co., 36 N.B.2d 411, 309 Mass.
528.
81. Cal.— • Bakewell v. Bakewell, 180
P.2d 975, 21 Cal.2d 224.
Okl.— Consumers' Oil & Refining Co.
v. Bilby, 217 P. 484, 91 Okl. 282.
Tenn. — Vineyard v. Vineyard, 170 S.
W.2d 917, 26 Tenn.App. 232.
Final and interlocutory decrees see
Equity § 582.
Finality of determination as affect-
ing conclusiveness of adjudication
see infra § 699.
22. Cal. — Anderson v. Great Repub-
lic Life Ins. Co., 106 P.2d 75, 41
Cal.App.2d 181 — Howard v. How-
ard, 261 P. 714, 716, 87 CaLApp.
20.
111.— Brauer Machine & Supply Co.,
for Use of Bituminous Casualty
Corporation v. Parkhill Truck Co.,
50 N.B.2d 836, 383 111. 569, 148
A.L..R. 1208.
Different meaningi
Although "final" is frequently used
with "judgment" to distinguish from
interlocutory orders or Judgments
in the same court, "final judgment"
also describes a determination effec-
tive to conclude further proceedings
.n the same cause by appeal or oth-
erwise, especially where time within
which to act is limited to run from
"final judgment".— Northwestern
Wisconsin Blec. Co. v. Public Serv-
ice Commission, 22 N.W.2d 472, 248
Wis. 479.
23. Mich.— Wurzer v. Geraldine, 256
N.W. 439, 441, 268 Mich. 286.
Okl.— Consolidated School Dist No.
15 of Texas County v. Green, 71
P.2d 712, 714, 180 Okl, 567.
Pa.— Frank P. Miller Paper Co. v.
Keystone Coal & Coke Co., 118 A.
565, 566, 275 Pa. 40.
Tenn.— Vineyard v. Vineyard, 170 S.
W.2d 917, 920, 26 TennJVpp. 232.
Tex.— Lubell v. Button, Civ.App., 164
S.W.2d 41, 44, error refused.
Utah.— Hartford Accident & Indem-
nity Co. v. Clegg, 135 P.2d 919, 91
103 Utah 414.
Vt. — Corpus Juris cited in State v.
Green Mountain Power Corpora-
tion, 28 A.2d 698, 699.
33 C.J. p 1061 note 30.
The general test for determining
whether a judgment, is "final" is
that, when no issue is left for future
consideration except fact of compli-
ance or noncompliance with terms of
the first decree, decree is final, but,
where anything further in the nature
of judicial action on the part of the
court is essential to a final deter-
mination o? the rights of the par-
ties, the decree is "interlocutory". —
Bakewell v. Bakewell, 130 P.2d 975,
978, 21 CaUd 224— Lyon v. Goss
123 P.2d 11, 17, 19 Cal.2d 659.
Similar definitions
(1) A "final decree" is one in
which nothing in the case is re-
served by the court for further de-
cision.— Sample v. Romine, 10 So.2d
346, 193 Minn. 706.
(2) A "final judgment" is one that
35
brings suit to a conclusion and bars
recovery in any other litigation be-
.ween the same parties on the same
slaim. — Ranallo v. Hinman Bros.
Const. Co., D.C.Ohio, 49 F.Supp. 920,
924, affirmed, C.C.A., Buckeye Union
Casualty Co. v. Kanallo, 135 F.2d
921, certiorari denied 64 S.Ct. 47,
320 U.S. 745, 88 L.Ed. 442.
(3) A "final judgment" is one
which finally disposes of parties'
rights either on entire controversy
or on some definite and separate
branch thereof. — Brauer Machine &
Supply Co., for Use of Bituminous
Casualty Corporation v. Parkhill
Truck Co., 50 N.B.2d 836, 840, 383 111.
569, 148 A.L.R. 1208— General Elec-
tric Co. v. Gellman Mfg. Co., 48 N.B.
2d 451, 318 Ill.App. 644.
(4) A "final judgment" is one
which determines and disposes of
merits by declaring that plaintiff is
or is not entitled to recover by a
remedy chosen. — Irving Trust Co, v*
Kaplan, Fla., 20 So.2d 351, 354.
(5) A judgment is a "final" OP
'definitive Judgment" when it set-
tles the issues presented in the main
controversy to such an extent that
it will have the force of res judicata
if it is not reversed on appeal. —
Metairie Bank in Liquidation v.
Lecler, La.App., 4 So.2d 573, 575.
(6) "Final judgments" are such
as at once put an end to the action
by declaring that plaintiff has or has
not entitled himself to recover.
Ky. — Faulkner v. Faulkner, 110 S.W.
2d 465, 470, 270 Ky. 693.
Pa.— Frank P. Miller Paper Co. v.
Keystone Coal & Coke Co., 118 A.
565, 275 Pa. 40.
(7) There must be findings of feet
and conclusions of law to constitute
a "final judgment" on the merits. —
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co,
v. Clegg, 135 P.2d 919, 922, 103 Utah
414.
(8) Other definitions.
U.S. — In re Roney, C.C.A.Ind.t 139
F.2d 175, 177 — Karl Kiefer MacJb.
Co. v. U. S. Bottlers Machinery Co.,
§11
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.&
interlocutory judgment is one which does not so
dispose of the cause, but reserves or leaves some
further question or direction for future determina-
tion.2* Under the definition of a judgment as the
l., 108 F.2d 469. 470— Ross
v. International Life Ins. Co., CO.
A.Tenn., 24 F.2d 345, 346 — G. Am-
sinck & Co. v. Springfield Grocer
Co., C.C.A.MO., 7 F.2d 855. 858—
Charles Needing- Trucking Co. v.
U. S., D.C.N.J., 29 F.Supp. 637, 544.
Ala,— Gandy v. Hauler, 16 So.2d 305,
307, 245 Ala. 167.
Cal. — Swarthout v. Gentry* App., 167
P.2d 501, 503— Vallera v. Vallera,
148 P.2d 694, 696, 64 Cal. App. 2d
266 — Potvin v. Pacific Greyhound
Lines, 20 P.2d 129, WO, 130 Cal.
App. 610.
Kan. — Smith v. Power, 127 P.2d 452,
454, 155 Kan. 612.
Ky. — Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth, 61
S.W.2d 879, 880, 250 Ky. ,21— Cau-
dill Coal Co. v. Charles Rosenheim
& Co., 258 S.W. 315, 316, 201 Ky.
758— Blackburn v. Blackburn, 254
S.W. 915, 917, 200 Ky. 310.
Me.— Sawyer v. White, 132 A. 421,
422, 125 Me. 206.
Mich.— Wurzer v. Geraldine, 256 N.
W. 439, 446, 268 Mich. 286.
Miss. — Johnson v. Mississippi Power
Co., 196 So. 642, 643, 189 Miss.
67.
N.C.— Hanks v. Southern "Public Util-
ities Co., 186 S.E. 252, 257, 210 N.
C. 312— Never Fail Land Co. v.
Cole, 149 S.B. 585, 588, 197 N.C.
452.
Ohio. — State ex rel. Curran v.
Brookes, 50 N.E.2d 995, 998, 142
Ohio St 107— Vida v. Parsley,
App., 47 N.B.2d 663, 665.
Okl.— Methvin v. Methvin, 127 P.2d
186, 188, 191 Okl. 177.
Pa. — Sundheim v. Beaver County
Building £ Loan Ass'n, 14 A.2d
349, 351, 140 Pa.Super. 529.
Tex.— Lanier v. Parnell. Civ.App.,
190 S.W.2d 421, 423— City of Gil-
mer v. Moyer, Civ. App., 181 S.W.
2d 1020, 1022— Garcia v. Jones,
Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d 925, 926, er-
ror dismissed, judgment correct —
Railroad Commission v. Humble
Oil & Refining- Co., Civ.App., 119
S.W.2d 728, error refused — Holmes
v. Klein, Civ.App., 59 S.W.2d 171,
172, error dismissed — Dallas Cof-
fee & Tea Co. v. Williams, Civ.
App., 45 S.W.2d 724, 728, error dis-
missed.
Va.— Williams v. Dean, 9 S.E.2d 327,
329, 175 Va. 435.
25 C.J. p 1130 notes 54-56 — 33 C.J.
p 1061 note 30 [a].
Synonymous with, "final determina-
tion"
"Final Judgment" Is synonymous
with "final determination,*' which.
means the final settling of the rights*
of the parties to the action beyond
all appeal. — Quarture v. Allegheny
County, 14 A-2d 676t 578, 141 Pa,
Super. 356, J
held
(1) Judgment expressly or by nee*
essary implication disposing of all
parties and issues Is final. — Southern
Pac. Co. v. TJlmer, Tex.Com. App., 286
S.W. 193— Duke v. Gilbreath, Tex.
Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 324, error dis-
missed— Adcock v. Shell, Tex.Civ.
App., 273 S.W. $00.
(2) A judgment may be "final"
whether it is based on a determina-
tion of a question of law or a ques-
tion of fact.— McWilliams v. Black-
ard, COAJVrk., 96 F.2d 43.
(3) Judgment may be final al-
though It fails to award writ of exe-
cution for its enforcement. — Reed v.
Bryant, Tex.Clv.App., 291 S.W. 605.
(4) Judgment requiring defendant
to pay amount into court to await
determination of conflicting claims
in another court was, as between the
parties, final. — Graham Refining Co.
v. Graham Oil Syndicate, tex.Civ.
App., 262 S.W. 142.
(5) A judgment dismissing cause
as to one defendant after giving
peremptory direction to find for such
defendant and rendering judgment
for plaintiff against another defend-
ant on verdict for plaintiff was final
disposition of issues as to former
defendant. — Newdiger v. Kansas
City, 114 S.W.2d 1047, 342 Mo. 252.
(6) Where a plaintiff's alternative
plea was not on trial and was effec-
tually disposed of by award, on her
principal cause of action, judgment
predicated on ultimate issues raised
by both pleading and evidence was a
"final judgment." — Connor v. Buford,
Tex.Civ.App., 142 S.W.2d 592, error
dismissed, judgment correct.
(7) Other judgments.
U.S. — Ashwander v. Tennessee Val-
ley Authority, D.C.Ala., 19 *F.Supp.
190, reversed on other grounds,
C.C.A., Alabama Power Co. v. Ten-
nessee Valley Authority, 92 F.2d
412.
Cal. — Ochoa v. McCush, 2 P.2d 357,
216 Cal. 426— Griffith v. List, 9 P.
2d 529, 122 Cal. App. 125.
111.— Gunn v. Brltt, 39 N.E.2d 76, 78,
313. ULApp. 13.
Ky.— Struve v. Lebus, 136 S.W.2d
554, 281 Ky. 407— Crawford v. Rid-
dle, 45 S.W.2d 463, 241 Ky. 839—
First State Bank v. Thacker*s
Adm'x, 284 S.W. 1020, 215 Ky. 186
—Watts v. Noble, 262 S.W. 1114,
203 Ky. 699.
La. — Castelluccio v. Cloverland Dairy
Products Co., 115 So. 796, 165 La.
606, conformed to 8 1/a.App. 723
— Spence v. Spence, 107 So. 294,
160 La. 430.
Mo.— Chance v. Franke, 153 S.W.2d
378. 348 Mo. 402— State ex reL
36
Maple v. Mulloy, 15 S.W.2d 809,
322 Mo. 281.
N.C.— Nash v. City of Monroe, 158
S.B. 384, 200 N.C. 729.
Okl.— Davis v. Baum. 133 P.2d 889,
192 Okl. 85 — Consolidated School
Dist. No. 15 of Texas County v.
Green, 71 P.2d 712, 714, 180 Okl.
567 — Consumers' Oil & Refining
Co. v. Bilby, 217 P. 484, 91 Okl.
282.
S.D.— Western Bldg. Co. v. J. C. Pen-
ney Co., 245 N.W. 909, 60 S.D. 630.
Tex.— Grayson v. Johnson, Civ.App.,
181 S.W.2d 312— Doornbos v. Loon-
ey, Civ. App., 159 S.W.2d 155, error
refused — Runyon v. Valley Pub.
Co., Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d 521, error
refused — Pfeifer v. Johnson, Civ.
App., 70 S.W.2d 203— Bell v. Rog-
ers, Civ.App., 58 S.W.2d 878—
Stokes Bros. & Co. v. Kramer, Civ.
App., 44 S.W.2d 822— Duke v. Gil-
breath, Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 324,
error dismissed— Phillips v. Jones,
Civ.App., 283 S.W. 298.
Utah. — Logan City v. Utah Power &
Light Co., 16 P.2d 1097, 86 Utah
340, adhered to 44 P.2d 698. 86
Utah 354.
33 C.J. p 1061 note 30 [el.
34. Cal. — Swarthout.v. Gentry, App.,
167 P.2d 501, 503.
Okl. — Consumers' Oil & Refining Co.
v. Bilby, 217 P. 484, 489, 91 Okl.
282.
Pa.— Frank P. Miller Paper Co. v.
Keystone Coal & Coke 'Co., 118 A.
565, 566, 275 Pa. 40.
Tex. — In re Greer, TexCiv.App., 41
S.W.2d 351.
33 C.J. p 1061 note 30.
Similar definitions '
(1) An "interlocutory decree" is
one that Is rendered in the progress
of a lawsuit, or between the com-
mencement and the end of the suit.
—In re Byrne, 191 So. 729, 730, 193
La. 566.
(2) It is a judgment made for
purpose of ascertaining some matter
of fact or law, preparatory to a
final decree. — Vineyard v. Vineyard,
170 S.W.2d 917, 26 Tenn.App. 232.
(3) An "Interlocutory judgment'*
Is one which determines some pre-
liminary or subordinate point or
plea, or settles some step, question
or default arising in the progress
of the cause, but does not adjudicate
the ultimate rights of the parties. —
Consumers' Oil & Refinkig Co. v. Bll-
by, 217 P. 484, 489, 91 Okl. 282.
(4) A judgment which reserves
for adjudication by the court at a
later date some Issues between the
parties to the action and only .par-
tially or incompletely disposes of
the parties or issues is an "inter-
locutory judgment" — Manley v. Ra-
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§11
final determination of the rights of the parties, as
discussed supra § 1, there can be no such thing as
an interlocutory judgment in the strictly technical
sense of the term ; such interlocutory judgments are
in fact interlocutory orders.26 The term "inter-
locutory judgment" is, however, a convenient one
to indicate the determination of steps or proceed-
ings in a cause preliminary to final judgment, and
in such sense the term is in constant and general
use even in code states.26 In determining whether
a judgment is interlocutory or final, it should be
zien, Tex.Civ.App., 172 S.W.2d 798,
799 — Lubell v. Sutton, Tex.Civ.App.,
164 S.W.2d 41, 46, error refused.
(5) Judgment is "interlocutory"
where it is one substantially dispos-
ing- of merits, ,but leaving issue of
fact to be decided or some condi-
tion to be performed, in order fully
to determine the rights of the par-
ties.— Security State Bank v. Monona
Golf Club, 252 N.W. 287, 289, 213
Wis. 581.
Judgments held interlocutory
(1) Judgments based on citation
by publication are "Interlocutory"
only until such time as their valid-
ity is actually established by proper
proceeding in court of competent Ju-
risdiction having parties in interest
before it. — Seymour v. Schwartz,
Tex.Civ.App., 172 S.W.2d 138.
(2) A judgment which recited that
the court, on consideration of com-
plaint, service of summons, answer,
and evidence introduced by plaintiffs,
found that defendant was liable to
plaintiffs in amounts "that may be
adjudged later by jury properly em-
paneled to hear the evidence pertain-
ing to the amount of damages", etc.,
was an "interlocutory judgment" in
which defendant's liability was prop-
erly determined and amount of dam-
ages left to be assessed. — Checker
Gab Co. of Hot Springs v. Leeper,
182 S.W.2d 871, 207 Ark. 799.
(3) A decree which in the first in-
stance is to be a "decree nisi" but is
to become absolute on expiration of
stipulated period after entry thereof
Is deemed an "interlocutory decree."
— In re Hanrahan's Will, 194 A. 471,
109 Vt 108.
(4) Other judgments.
Ala.— Indian Head, Mills of Alabama
v* Ashworth, 110 So. 565, 215 Ala.
348 — Blankenship v. Hail, 106 So.
594, 214 Ala. 95— Hill v. Hill, 100
So. 340, 211 Ala. 293.
Nev.— Nevada First Nat Bank of
Tonopah v. Lamb, 271 P. 691, 51
Nev. 162.
Pa.— Markofski v. .Tanks, 146 A. 569,
297 Pa. 74 — Commonwealth v.
Provident Trust Co., 92 Pittsb.Leg.
J. 348, 58 York LegJlec. 101.
Tex. — Fisher v. Wilson, Civ.App.,
185 S.W.2d 186, affirmed Wilson v.
Fisher, Sup., 188 S.W.2d 150— Kline
v. Power, Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 617
— McCurley v. Texas Indemnity
Ins. Co., Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 992,
error refused.
Vt.— Morgan v. Gould, 119 A. 517, 96
Vt 275.
Va.— Freezer v. Miller, 176 S.B. 159,
163 Va. 180.
33 C.J. p 1061 note 30 [f].
Process and Jurisdiction
To render interlocutory Judgment,
it is necessary for court to find that
process had been served on defend-
ant and that court had jurisdiction
of his person. — Hart v. Foster, 109
S.W.2d 504, error dismissed.
25. Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in Bar-
low v. gcott 85 S.W.2d 504, 519.
N.D. — Universal Motors v. Coman,
15 N.W.2d 73, 73 N.D. 337.
S.D.— Western Bldg. Co. v. J. C. Pen-
ney Co., 245 N.W. 909, 60 S.D. 630.
33 C.J. p 1062 note 32.
Synonymous terms
Term "interlocutory Judgment" Is
synonymous with term "order." —
Sobieski v. City of Chicago, 241 111.
App. 180, error dismissed 156 N.E.
279, 325 111. 259.
26. Ark.— Checker Cab Co. of Hot
Springs v. Leeper, 182 S.W.2d 871,
207 Ark. 799.
Conn. — Preston v. Preston, 128 A.
292, 102 Conn. 96.
C.J. p 1062 note 33.
Statutory recognition
(1) Interlocutory judgments or de-
crees are expressly recognized un-
der some statutory provisions. — In
re Bailey, 40 N.T.S.2d 746, 749, 265
App.Div. 758, affirmed 50 N.E.2d 653,
291 N.Y. 534—33 C.J. p 1062 note 33
(2) The legislative purpose, in en-
acting statute authorizing interlocu-
tory judgment, was not to authorize
a mere tentative or proposed judg-
ment but. one which would finally
dispose of a portion of a controver-
sy.— Kickapoo Development Corpora-
tion v. Kickapoo Orchard Co., 285
N.W. 354, 231 Wis. 458.
27. Tex. — Thomas v. International
Seamen's Union of America, Civ.
App., 101 S.W.2d 328. 1
37
construed in accordance with the conduct of the
parties and the intention of the court gathered
from the language of the judgment or decree.2?
A judgment may be final although it does not de-
termine the rights of the parties, if it ends the par-
ticular suit,2* such as a judgment of dismissal, non-
suit,^ or discontinuance,30 or a judgment abating
an action.3i Also a judgment may be final although
further directions may be necessary to carry it into
effect,32 although further proceedings remain to be
taken in court to make the judgment effective,** Or
The character of the decree or
Judgment is an important factor to
be considered.— Karl Kiefer Mach.
Co. v. U. S. Bottlers Machinery Co.,
C.C.A.I11., 108 F.2d 469.
28. Cal. — Fisch & Co. v. Superior
Court in and for Los Angeles
County, 43 P.2d 855, 6 Cal.App.2d
21.
Tex.— Witty v. Rose, Civ.App., 148 S.
W.2d 962, error dismissed.
38 C.J. p 1063 note 34.
29. Ariz. — Hartford Accident & In-
demnity Co. v. Sorrellsi 69 P.2d
240, 50 Ariz. 90.
Cal.— Fisch & Co. v. Superior Court
in and for Los Angeles County 43
P.2d 855, 6 Cal.App.2d 21.
Mass. — Sullivan v. Martinelli. 158 N
E. 662, 261 Mass. 261.
Tex.— Renfroe v. Johnson, 177 S.W.
3d 600, 142 Tex. 251— Ley v. Ley.
Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 503, error dis-
missed.
33 C.J. p 1063 note 35.
Dismissal fop failure to file boad for
costs
Tex— Witty v. Rose, Civ.App., 148
S.W.2d 962, error dismissed.
30. Conn.— Foley v. George A. •
Douglas & Bro., 185 A. 70, 121
Conn. 377.
31. Cal.— Watterson v. Owens River
Canal Co., 210 P. 625, 190 Cal. 88
— San Francisco Breweries v. Su-
perior Court in and for City and
County of San Francisco, 251 P.
935, 80 CaLApp. 433.
32. U.S. — In re Casaudoumecq, D.C.
Cal., 46 F.Supp. 718.
Ind.— Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,
151 N.E. 610, 198 Ind. 207.
y.— Watts v. Noble, 262 S.W. 1114,
203 Ky. 644.
Mo.— State ex rel. Maple v. Mulloy,
15 S.W.2d 809, 322 Mo. 281.
33 C.J. p 1063 note 36.
33. U.S.— In re Casaudoumecct, D,C.
Cal., 46 F.Supp. 718.
Ky.— Alexander v, Tipton, 291 S.W.
1019, 218 Ky. 666.
Tex.— Lanier v. Parnell, Civ.App.,
190 S.W.2d 421.
Proceedings incidental to execution
(1) Decree may be partly final and
partly interlocutory; final as to de-
termination of all issues, and inter-
§11
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
although the court reserves the right to modify the
judgment.8* The finality of a judgment is not af-
fected by the fact that it constitutes an erroneous
decision as to the law or the facts.36
On the other hand, a judgment is not generally
considered final where further judicial action is nec-
essary in order fully and finally to settle the rights
of the parties,36 as where the judgment settles only
some of several issues of law or fact,37 or does not
dispose of the case as to all the parties ;38 but judg-
ments determining particular matters in controver-
sy, and of such a nature that they could be imme-
diately enforced and by their enforcement deprive
the party against whom they were rendered of any
benefit which he might obtain from an appeal at any
subsequent stage of the proceedings, have been
deemed final.39 A judgment is not final which is to
become effective only on the happening of a future
event or contingency40 or which is made subject to
revision at a future specified date.41
A judgment ordinarily is final when rendered in
pursuance of a general verdict,42 or on submission
locutory as to mode of execution. —
Perry v. West Coast Bond & Mort-
gage Co., 29 P.2d 279, 136 Cal.App.
557.
(2) A Judgment over against prin-
cipal and in favor of surety on fidel-
ity bond was "final", notwithstand-
ing it was made contingent on pay-
ment by surety of primary judg-
ment against it on the bond, since
all litigated rights relating to mat-
ter involved were determined and
further proceedings required in com-
plete satisfaction of decree were
merely incidental to its proper exe-
cution.— American Employers' Ins.
Co. v. Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank,
Tex.Civ.App., 170 S.W.2d 546, error
refused.
34. Tex. — Graham v. Coolidge, 70 S.
W. 231, 30 Tex.Civ.App. 273.
35. Cal. — In re Gardiner's .Estate,
114 P.2d 643, 45 Cal.App. 2 d 559.
Tex. — Snell v. Knowles, Civ.App., 87
S.W.2d 871, error dismissed.
36. Mo. — State ex rel. and to Use
of Abeille Fire Ins. Co. v. Sevier,
73 S.W.2d 361, 335 Mo. 269, cer-
tiorari denied State of Missouri ex
rel. and to Use of Abeille Fire
Ins. Co. of Paris v. Sevier, 55 S.
Ct. 99, 293 U.S. 585, 79 L.Ed. 680.
Va. — Massanutten Bank of Strasburg
v. Glaize, 14 S.B.2d 285, 177 Va,
519.
Reference for Judicial purpose
Generally a decree fixing liability
and rights of the parties and refer-
ring the case to a master or subor-
dinate tribunal for a judicial pur-
pose, such as the statement of an
account, on which a further decree
is to be entered,. Is not a "final de-
cree."— Swarthout v. Gentry, Cal.
App., 167 0?.2d 501.
37. Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Barlow v. Scott, 85 S.W.2d 504,
519.
Okl.— Hurley v. Hurley, 127 P.2d 147,
191 Okl. 194.
Tenn. — Vineyard v. Vineyard, 170
S.W.2d 917, 26 Tenn.App. 232.
Tex. — Wood v. Gulf Production Co.,
Clv.App., 100 S.W.2d 412 — Harris
v. O'Brien, Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 277 j
—Duke v. Gilbreath, Civ.App., 2
S.W.2d 324, error dismissed.
33 C.J. p 1063 note 38.
"A case is never finally determined
when any controversial matter, a
part thereof, is open and undeter-
mined."— In re Returns From Her-
minle Election Dist. of Sewickley
Tp., Westmoreland County, 192 A.
130, 132, 326 Pa, 321.
Specific disposition unnecessary
It is not essential to the finality of
a Judgment that it in express terms
specifically dispose of each issue,
since the fact that judgment dispos-
es of a particular issue may be in-
ferred from other provisions there-
of, provided such inference follows
as a necessary Implication. — Gamble
v. Banneyer, 151 S.W.2d 586, 137 Tex.
7.
Where several distinct causes of
action ore united in the same suit,
the rule that a judgment to be final
must dispose of the entire case does
not apply. — Shamburger v. Glenn,
Tex.Civ.App., 255 S.W. 815—33 C.J. p
1063 note 38 [d].
38. Mo. — Corpus Juris Quoted In
Barlow v. Scott, 85 S.W.2d 604,
519— Stelger v. City of Ste. Gene-
vieve, 141 S.W.2d 233, 235 Mo.App.
579.
Tex. — Gathings v. Robertson, Com.
App.. 276 S.W. 218— Minnock v.
Garrison, Civ.App:, 144 S:W.2d 328
— Wood v. Gulf Production Co.,
Civ.App., 100 S.W.2d 412— Duke v.
Gilbreath, Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 324,
error dismissed.
33 C.J. p 1063 note 39.
Real parties
A judgment that fails to dispose
of the real parties to the litigation,
either expressly or by necessary im-
plication, is not final. — Wilson v.
Cone, Tex.Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d 784.
Disposal by implication
A Judgment, to be "final," must
dispose of all parties and issues In
the case, but disposal of parties need
not be by name, necessary implica-
tion being sufficient. — Texas Life Ins.
Co. v. Miller, Tex.Clv.App., 114 S.W.
2d 600.
38
39. Cal. — Perry v. West Coast Bond
& Mortgage Co., 29 P.2d 279, 136
CaLApp. 557.
Ky.— Watts v. Noble, 262 S.W. 1114,
203 Ky. 644.
Ohio.— Speidel v. Schaller, 55 N.E.2d
346, 73 Ohio App. 141.
Tex. — Seby v. Craven Lumber Co.,
Civ. App., 259 S.W. 1093.
33 C.J. p 1063 note 40.
Portion of land
Judgment awarding half of land
in controversy to defendant without
determining ownership of the other
half was final as to half awarded. —
Duval v. Duval, 291 S.W. 488, 816
Mo. 626.
40. Tex. — Echols v. Echols, Civ.
App., 168 S.W.2d 282, error refused
— Dodd v. Daniel, Civ.App., 89 S.
W.2d 494.
Conditional judgments generally see
infra § 73.
Compliance with conditions
A judgment granting plaintiff an
injunction, but which requires him
to comply with certain conditions
imposed within a certain number of
days, and provides that, in the event
of plaintiff's failure so to comply,
the judgment shall be for defend-
ants, is not a final decree. — Consum-
ers' Oil & Refining Co. v. Bilby, 217
P. 484, 91 Okl. 282.
Judgment held not contingent
Agreed provisions in judgment for
suspension and postponement of is-
suance of order of sale under Judg-
ment until judgment debtor's de-
fault in payment of any stipulated
installment of judgment debt to
court clerk did not render judgment
indefinite, or prevent it from being
"final judgment" after its proper en-
try on payment of first installment
as there was no further contingency
on happening of which court might
properly be required to perform any
further judicial function in connec-
tion with case. — Grayson v. Johnson,
Tex.Civ.App., 181 S.W.2d 312.
41. Tex. — Echols v. Echols, Civ.
App., 168 S.W.2d 282, error re-
fused.
42. Mo.— State v. Riley. 118 S.W.
647, 219 Mo. 667.
Pa.— In re Fulton, 51 Pa. 204.
49
JUDGMENTS
§11
of the entire case to the court,4* or on submission
for decision on the pleadings.44 A judgment or de-
cree by consent may constitute a final disposition of
a cause.45 Judgment upon demurrer to any of the
pleadings in chief is generally final unless leave to
amend or to plead over is given,4« in which case
the judgment is interlocutory.47 A judgment or de-
cree for an accounting is interlocutory in charac-
ter.48 The question whether a particular order or
judgment is final or interlocutory most frequently
arises as a question of appealability, and these cas-
es are discussed in Appeal and Error §§ 94-108.
b. When Judgment Becomes Final
A Judgment Is generally considered final and en-
forceable as soon as It is entered, read, and signed in
open court, but for some purposes It may not be final
until a later time.
For most purposes a judgment will be considered
final and enforceable by appropriate writ as soon as
it is entered, read, and signed in open court,49 not-
withstanding a motion for new trial remains undis-
posed of,5<> that the judgment is still subject to
appellate review,51 or that an appeal is actually
pending.52 A judgment is not "final" for some pur-
poses, however, merely because execution may be
issued on it,53 and it has been variously held that
finality attaches to the judgment only at the end
of the term of court at which it was entered,54 or at
the end of a specified period of time after the date
of its rendition,55 or after the time for filing mo-
tions to prevent entry of judgment has expired with-
out such motions being filed, or, if filed, after they
are determined.56 It has also been held that a judg-
ment becomes final only after expiration of the time
allowed by law for appeal therefrom, or, if an ap-
peal is perfected, after the judgment is upheld in
the appellate court,5? but this rule is inapplicable
if the judgment is not subject to review.58
43. 111.— Pease v. Roberts, 9 BLApp.
132.
33 C.J. p 1063 note 42.
44. Wis.— Sanderson v. Herman, 85
N.W. 141, 108 Wis. 662.
33 C.J. p 1063 note 43.
45. Ala. — Payne v. Graham, 102 So.
729, 20 Ala-App. 439.
Colo.— Heil v. Hubbell, 252 P. 343,
80 Colo. 452.
Ga.— Baker v. McCord, 162 S.B. 110,
173 Ga. 819.
46. Ark.— Smart v. Alexander, 158
S.W.2d 924, 203 Ark. 1147.
Del.— Hazzard v. Alexander, 178 A.
873, 6 W.W.Harr. 512.
33 C.J. p 1063 note 44.
Provision permitting fiUaff excep-
tions or statement of facts did not
avoid implication that judgment dis-
posed of case on general demurrer
rather than on the merits. — Wells v.
Stonerock, Teac.Com.App., 12 S.W.2d
961.
The ruling1 of the court on a de-
murrer is not a final order unless
final judgment is entered thereon. —
Cooper v. Knuckles, 279 S.W. 1084,
212 Ky. 608.
47. xj.s.— Morris v. Dunbar, Pa,, 149
F. 406, 79 C.C.A. 226.
33 C.J. p 1063 note 45.
48. Kan.— City of Eureka v. Kansas
Electric Power Co., 3 P.2d 484, 133
Kan. 708.
33 C.J. P 1063 note 46.
49. Ind.— Whinery v. Kozacik, 22 N
E.2d 829, 216 Ind. 136.
Mass. — In re Keenan, 47 N.E.2d 12
313 Mass. 186.
Time of taking effect of Judgmen
see infra § 446.
Signing held necessary
It has been held that a judgmen
is not final until it is signed.— Rive
& Rails Terminals v. Louisiana Ry.
& Nav. Co., 103 So. 331, 157 La. 1085
— Young v. Geter, La.App.. 187 So.
30.
a Ind.— Whinery v. Kozacik, 22 N.
E.2d 829, 216 Ind. 13.6.
Finality of determination as affect-
ed by proceedings for relief
against judgment see infra §§ 622,
623. 700-702.
L Ohio.— Shoup v. Clemans, App.,
31 N.E.2d 103.
52. U.S. — In re Maryanov, D.C.N.Y.,
20 F.2d 939.
tf.Y.— In re Bailey, 40 N.Y.S.2d 746,
265 App.Div. 758, affirmed 50 N.E.
2d 653, 291 N.Y. 534.
53. Okl. — Methvin v. Methvin, 127
P.2d 186, 191 Okl. 177.
54. TT.S.— Reed v. South Atlantic
S. S. Co. of Delaware, D.C.Del.,
2 F.R.D. 475.
Pa,— Salus v. Fogel, 153 A, 547, 302
Pa. 268.
55. Fla. — Mabson v. Christ, 119 So.
131, 96 Fla. 756.
Ky.— Yumg v. Yung, 171 S.W.2d 1017,
294 Ky. 369.
Tex. — Gillette Motor Transport Co,
v Wichita Falls & Southern R-
Co. Civ.App., 170 S.W.2d 629, man-
damus denied Wichita Falls & S
R. Co. v. McDonald, 174 S.W.2d
951, 141 Tex. 555.
Va. — Carney v. Poinderter, 196 S.E
639, 170 Va. 233.
judgment rendered on constructive
service does not become final unti
two years from rendition.— TrujilK
v. Piarote, 53 S.W.2d 466, 122 Tex.
173.
56. U.S. — Moss v. Kansas City Lif
Ins. Co., C.C.A.MO., 96 F.2d 10$
Mo— Lee's Summit Building & Loan
Ass'n v. Cross, 134 S.W.2d 19, 34
39
Mo. 501— Williams v. Pemiscot
County, 133 S.W.2d 417, 345 Mo.
415 — Melenson v. Howell, 130 S.W.
2d 555, 344 Mo. 1137.
BSotton for new trial
(1) Text rule applies with respect
o pendency of motion for new trial.
Fla,— Cole v. Walker Fertilizer Co.,
for Use and Benefit of Walker, 1
So.2d 864, 147 Fla. 1.
Mo.— Cox v. Frank L. Schaab Stove
& Furniture Co., 58 S.W.2d 700,
332 Mo. 492, transferred, see App.,
67 S.W.2d 790.
Tex.— Rabinowitz v. Darnall, Com.
App., 13 S.W.2d 73.
(2) Where motion for «xew trial
was never heard, the motion was au-
tomatically overruled at the end
of the next succeeding term, and the
udgment then became final. — Kinney
v. Toelin Bros. Mercantile Co., 220
P. 998, 74 Colo. 295.
An unauthorized motion will not
suffice to postpone finality of a ju-
dicial decision.— Lindsay v. Evans,
Mo.App., 174 S.W.2d 390.
57. Ga,— Powell v. Powell, 37 S.E.
2d 191— Aud v. Aud, 35 S.E.2d 198,
199 Ga. 714— Twilley v. Twilley, 24
S.E.2d 46, 195 Ga, 297.
Okl.— Methvin v. Methvin, 127 P.2d
186, 191 Old. 177.
judgment is final when defendant
fails to perfect appeal therefrom
within time prescribed by law.
La.— Robinson v. Weiner, 105 So. 35,
158 La. 979 — Albritton v. Nauls,
App., 15 So.2d 126, 128.
Pa. — H. Miller & Sons' Co. v. Mt.
Lebanon Tp., 163 A. 511; 309 Pa.
221.
Tex.— Bound v. Dillard, Civ.App., 140
S.W.2d 520.
58. U.S.— In re Tapp, D.C.Ky., 61
F.Supp. 594.
§ 12
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
§ 12. Judgments in Rem' and in Per-
sonam
A Judgment in rem Is an adjudication pronounced on
the status of some particular subject matter, while a
judgment In personam is In form and substance between
the parties claiming the right in controversy and does
not directly affect the status of the res.
Judgments, for certain purposes, are divided into
three classes designated as "judgments in perso-
nam" or "personal judgments," "judgments in rem/'
and "judgments quasi in rem/'65 A judgment or
decree in rem is an adjudication pronounced on the
status of some particular subject matter by a tri-
bunal having competent authority for that pur-
pose.60 It differs from a judgment or decree in
personam in this, that the latter is in form as well
as in substance between the parties claiming the
right in controversy, and does not directly affect
the status of the res, but only through the action of
the parties.61 Judgments quasi in rem are rendered
in proceedings quasi in rem and affect not only title
to the res, but likewise the right in and to it pos-
sessed by individuals.62
H. ESSENTIALS OP EXISTENCE, VALIDITY, AND REGULARITY OP JUDGMENT
A. IN GENERAL
§ 13. General Statement
It Is essential to the validity of a Judgment that It
be based on, and be in conformity with, recognized prin-
ciples and fundamentals of law.
It is essential to the validity of a judgment that
it be based on, and be in conformity with, recog-
nized principles and fundamentals of law.68 Where
statutory powers are conferred on a court of in-
ferior jurisdiction, and the mode of executing those
powers is prescribed, the course pointed out must
be substantially pursued, or the judgments of the
59. Kan,— Union Central Life Ins. |
Co. v. 'Irrigation Loan & T. Co., 73 ;
P,2d 72, 146 Kan. 550.
Ky. — Combs v. Combs, 60 S.W.2d
368, 249 Ky. 155, 8D A.L.R. 1095.
Actions In rem and in personam see
Actions $52.
60. 111.— McCormick y. Blaine, 178
N.B. 195, 197, 345 111. 461, 77 A.L.
R. 1215— Wilson v. Smart, 155 N.
B. 288, 291, 324 IH. 276— Austin v.
Royal League, 147 N.E. 106, 109,
316 111. 188.
Ky. — Gayle v. Gayle, 192 S.W.2d 821;
822— Booth v. Copley, 140 S.W.2d
662, 666, 283 Ky. 23— Corpus Juris
quoted in Combs v. Combs, 60 S.W.
2d 368, 369, 249 Ky, 156, 89 A.L.R.
1095.
Nev. — Perry v. Edmonds, 84 P.2d 711,
713, 59 Nev. 60.
33 C.J. p 1063 note 48—34 C.J. P 1171
note 89.
Judgments in rem generally see in-
fra §§ 907-911.
A "special" Judgment is a judg-
ment in rem. — Smith v. Colloty, 55
A. 805, 806, 69 N.J.Law 365.
Judgments held not in rem
(1) Generally.
Conn. — Whipple v. Fardig, 146 A.
847, 109 Conn. 460.
Iowa.— Ryke v. Ream, 234 N.W. 196,
212 Iowa 126.
(2) In equity action by assignee
of insured's creditor to have pro-
ceeds of life policies subjected to
creditor's claim, that proceeds of one
policy were on deposit in bank in an-
other state did not make the decree
«ne in rem rather than in personam.
—In re Hazeldine's Estate, 280 N.W.
6C8, 225 Iowa 369.
61. Ky.— Gayle v. Gayle, 192 S.W.2d
821, 822 — Corpus Juris quoted in
Combs v. Combs, 60 S.W.2d "368,
369, 249 Ky. 155, 89 A.L.R. 1095.
33 C.J. p 1064 note 49.
The term "general judgment" has
been used as synonymous with
"judgment in personam." — Smith v.
Colloty, 55 A. 805, 806, 69 N.J.Law
365.
Judgment held in personam
Miss. — Jones v. McCormick, 110 So.
591, 145 Miss. 566.
Judgment held not in personam
U.S.— Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
v. Wells, C.C.A.Tex., 285 F. 369,
reversed on other grounds 44 S.
Ct. 469, 265 U.S. 101, 68 L.Ed. 928.
The inclusion of costs in judgment
against a nonresident did not render
it void as a personal judgment,
where the judgment recited that de-
fendant was duly cited. — Reitz v.
Mitchell, Tex.Civ.App., 256 .S.W. 697.
Equity decrees operate in person,
am and at most only collaterally in
rem. — McKixmey v. Mires, 26 P.2d
169, 95 Mont 191.
62. Ky.— Combs v. Combs, 60 S.W.
2d 363, 249 Ky. 155, 89 A.L.R.
1095.
63, IT.S.— Duwamish v. TT. S., 79 Ct.
Cl. 530, certiorari denied 55 S.Ct.
913, 295 U.S. 755, 79 L.Ed. 1698.
Utah.— Stockyards Nat. Bank of
South Omaha v. Bragg, 245 P. 966,
67 Utah 60.
. 40
Bond
Judgment Is not bad because trial
judge refuses to fix amount and con-
ditions of supersedeas bond. — Mc-
Cann v. Proskauer, 112 So. 621, 93
Fla. 383.
Judgment obtained at variance
with practice of court or contrary
to well recognized principles and
fundamentals of law must fall. —
Stockyards Nat. Bank of South Oma-
ha v. Bragg, 245 P. 966, 67 Utah 60.
Legality
The requirement that Judgment to
be valid must be one which tho court
could legally render means only that
judgment must be one which could
have been legally rendered on the
issue shown by the pleadings and
evidence. — Wall v. Superior Court of
Yavapai County, 89 P.2d 024, 63 Ariz.
344.
Judgment rendered on proceeding
improperly commenced is void. — Mu-
tual Life Ins. Co. of New York v.
Prever Lumber Co., 3 N.Y*.S.2d 642,
167 Misc. 662, reversed on other
grounds 6 N.7.S.2d 28, 168 Misc. 358.
Unauthorized practice of law
Fact that judgments were procur-
ed by one engaged in the illegal
practice of law did not render them
void or voidable. — Bump v. Barnett,
Iowa, 16 N.W.2d 579.
Upholding judgment
Sound public policy demands that
judgments be upheld, where it can
be done* without violating any stat-
ute or settled principle of law. — Bet-
sill v. Betsill, 196 S.E. 381, 187 8.CL
50.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§16
court will be void.** A cotirt shoald act render
a decree which is void for constitutional reasons.65
§ 14. Statutory Provisions and What Law
Governs
The validity, force, and effect of a Judgment must
be determined by the laws In force at the time and in
the jurisdiction where It was rendered.
The validity, force, and effect of a judgment must
be determined by the laws in force at the time66
and in the state or country where it was rendered.67
§ 15. Duly Constituted Court
It Is essential to the validity of a judgment that
It be the sentence or adjudication of a duly constituted
court or judicial tribunal.
It is essential to the validity of a judgment that
it be the sentence or adjudication of a duly consti-
tuted court or judicial tribunal.68 Judicial powers
are sometimes conferred on tribunals not techni-
cally courts, and decisions by such tribunals, in the
64. Wis. — Corpus Juris cited in
State ex rel. Lang1 v. Civil Court of
Milwaukee County, 280 N.W. 847,
849, 228 Wis. 411.
Wyo. — State v. District Court of
Eighth Judicial Dist. in and for
Natrona County, 238 P. 545, 83
Wyo. 281.
33 C.J. p 1064 note 58.
Exercise of statutory Jurisdiction
only as statute directs see Courts
5 89.
65. Colo. — In re Special Assess-
ments for Paving Dist. No. 3, In
City of Golden, 95 P.2d 806, 105
Colo. 158.
66. Cal.— Lake v. Bonynge, 118 -P.
535, 161 Cal. 120.
83 C.J. p 1064 note 59.
67. Mont — Swift & Co. v. Weston,
289 P. 1035, 88 Mont 40.
33 C.J. p 1064 note 60.
Foreign judgments see Infra 55 888-
906.
68. Ark, — Chapman & Dewey Lum-
ber Co. v. A-ndrews, 91 S.W.2d
1026, 192 Ark. 291.
Mass. — Carroll v. Berger, 150 N.E.
870, 255 Mass. 132.
33 C.J. p 1064 note 61.
Judgment on motion or summary
proceedings see infra S 219.
Rendition of judgments generally
see infra §§ 100-105.
Nullity of Judgment results from
a want of a legally organized court
or tribunal.
Cal. — Hunter v. Superior Court in
and for Riverside County, 97, P.2d
492, 36 Cal.App.2d 100.
Tex. — San Jacinto Finance Corpora-
exercise of powers thus conferred, are considered
as judgments.69
Judgments of de facto courts. On principles of
public policy and for the security of rights it has
been held that the regular judgments of a de facto
court, whose existence has afterward been pro-
nounced unconstitutional and void, are nevertheless
valid and conclusive.70
§ 16. Time and Place
a. In general
b. At chambers
a. In General
It has been held to be essential to the validity of a
judgment that it be rendered by a court sitting at the
time and also In the place authorized by law.
According to some authorities, it is essential to
the validity of a judgment that it be rendered by a
court sitting at the time71 and also in the place72
authorized by law, the tribunal not being otherwise
a court in any legal sense,7* and the proceedings
v. Perkins, CivJLpp., 94 S.W.
2d 1213.
Judgments hold not void
Mo. — State ex rel. Aquamsi Land Co.
v. Hostetter, 79 S.W.2d 463, 336
Mo. 391.
Tex. — Hudson v. Norwood, Civ.App.,
147 S.W.2d 826, error dismissed,
judgment correct
69. Me.— Longfellow v. Quimby, 29
Me. 196, 48 Axn.D. 525.
33 C.J. p 1065 note 67.
Allowance of claim by assignee for
benefit of creditors as equivalent
to judgment see Assignments for
Benefit of Creditors S 321.
7a Minn. — Burt v, Winona & St P.
R. Co., 18 N.W. 285, 81 Minn. 472.
33 C.J. p 1070 note 2.
De facto courts generally see Courts
§ 144.
71. Ala. — Polytinsky v. Johnston, 99
So. 839, 211 Ala. 99.
Ark. — Magnolia Petroleum Co. v.
Saunders, 94 S.W.2d 703, 192 Ark.
783.
Ga.— Hicks v. Hicks, 27 S.E.2d 10,
69 Ga.Afcp. 870.
HI.— -Wallace Grain & Supply Co. v.
Gary, 24 N.E.2d 907, 308 ULApp.
221, reversed on other grounds 28
N.B.2d 107, 374 111. 57.
Tex—British General Ens. Co. v.
Ripy, 106 S.W.2d 1047, 130 Tex.
101— Glasscock v. Pickens, Civ.
App., 73 S.W.2d 992— Sinclair Re-
fining Co. v. McElree, Civ.App., 52
S.W.2d 679 — Engelman v. Ander-
son, Civ.App., 244 S.W. 650.
33 C.J. p 1065 note 72.
Validity of judgment on holiday see
Holidays S 5 d.
Validity of Judgment on Sunday see
the C.J.S. title Sundays § 53, also
60 C.J. p 1146 note 57-p 1147
note 70.
72. Ala.— Polytiosky v. Johnston, 99
So. 839, 211 Ala. 99.
OkL— City of Clinton ex rel. Rich-
ardson v. Keen, 158 P.2d 104, 192
. Okl. 382— City of Clinton ex rel.
Richardson v. Cornell, 132 P.2d
840, 191 Okl. 600.
Tex.— British General Ins. Co. v.
Ripy. 106 S.W.2d 1047, 130 Tex. 101
— Ferguson v. Ferguson, Civ.App.,
98 S.W.2d 847.
33 C.J. p 1066 note 73.
District
(1) Ordinarily, a judgment cannot
be rendered out of the district.-^
Killiam v. Maiden Chair Co., 161 S.
E. 546, 202 N.C. 23.
(2) This rule has been held inap-
plicable where the parties consent
thereto, although the consent should
be in writing. — Killiam v. Maiden
Chair Co., supra.
Signing judgment in another county
(1) It has been held that a judg-
ment rendered at the close of the
evidence at the place of trial is not
rendered invalid because it was sign-
ed out of the county where trial was
had, under a statute providing that
judgment or decree may be rendered
by. the judge at any place in his dis-
trict— Swanson v. First Nat Bank,
219 P. 784, 74 Colo. 135.
(2) Other cases see 33 C.J. p 1066
note 73* [b].
73. Ariz. — Meade v. Scribaer, 85 P.
729, 10 Ariz. 33.
33 C.J. p 1066 note 74.
§ 16
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
being, therefore, coram aon judioe.74 In some cas-
es, however, it has been held that the fact that a
term of court at which a judgment was rendered
was held at a time other than that prescribed or
authorized by law, while rendering the judgment
erroneous and constituting ground for its reversal,
does not render the judgment void;7* but a con-
trary view has also been taken and a judgment ren-
dered under such circumstances has been held to be
void.™ It has been held that the mere fact that
the court was held at a place other than that di-
rected by law will not of itself render the judg-
ment void,7? as where the court errs with respect
to the location of the county seat78
The proper time for the rendition and entry of
judgment is discussed infra §§ 113-116.
b. At Chambers
Judgments should be rendered In open court and not
in chambers.
Judgments should be rendered in open court and
not in chambers,79 and it has been held that judg-
ments rendered in chambers are void,80 in the ab-
sence of statutory or constitutional provisions au-
thorizing such action at chambers.81
§ 17. Judges
a. In general
b. Disqualified judge
c. De facto judge
d. Special judge
a. In General
Illegal constitution of the court with respect to the
Judge or judges sitting renders the Judgment absolutely
void.
Illegal constitution of the court with respect to
the judge or judges sitting, as distinguished from'
mere disqualification of one or more of such judg-
es, renders the judgment absolutely void.82
b. Disqualified Judge
In the absence of a constitutional or statutory provi-
sion forbidding a disqualified Judge from acting, a Judg-
ment rendered by a disqualified judge is voidable but
not void.
Where a judge is forbidden to act in a case when
he is disqualified,83 as by reason of interest,84 re-
lationship to parties,85 having acted as counsel,86
74. Gau— Hicks v. Hicks, 27 S.E.2d
10, 69 Ga.App. 870.
33 C.J. p 1066 note 75.
76. S.D. — Lockard v. Lockard, 110
N.W. 1C4, 21 S.D. 134.
33 C.J. P 1066 note 76.
Court held under color of law
This view has been adopted where
the court was held under color of
law at a particular time, but at time
other than that actually fixed by law.
there having been a change in the
law which was unknown or overlook-
ed.—Venable v. Curd, 2 Head, Tenn.,
682.
78. Ala. — State v. Thurman, 88 So.
61, 17 Ala.App. 592.
33 C.J. p 1066 note 78.
77. Minn.— In re Ellis, 56 N.W. 1056,
55 Minn. 401, 43 Am.S.R. 514, 23
L.R.A, 287.
33 C.J. p 1066 note 79.
78. 111. — Robinson v. Moore, 25 HI.
185.
79. Tex. — Bridgman v. Moore, 183
S.W.2d 705, 143 Tex. 250.
33 O.J. p 1070 note 96.
Term ttxne *
It has been held that, if the judg-
ment Is entered In term time, it is
immaterial whether court perform-
ed act of rendering Judgment in
private office or courtroom. — Doep-
penschxnidt v. City of New Braun-
fels, Tex.Civ.App., 289 S.W. 425.
Boom of courthouse
Judgment by superior court in
room In courthouse at county site
other than regular courtroom has
been held not void, where no legal
or constitutional right of defendant
was infringed, and no substantial in-
jury to him has been done.— Walton
v. Wilkinson Bolton Co., 123 S.E. 103,
158 Ga. 13.
Signing judgment
Whether judgment was signed at
chambers or in open court was im-
material, since the signing of judg-
ment involves no judicial considera-
tion.—Baldwin v. Anderson, 13 P.2d
650, 52 Idaho 243—33 C.J. p 1070
note 96 [e].
80. Colo.— Scott v. Stutheit, 121 P.
151, 21 Colo.App. 151.
Neb.— Shold v. Van Treeck, 117 N.
W. 113, 82 Neb. 99.
33 C.J. p 1070 note 96—15 C.J. p 815
note 25.
Under statute requiring Judgments
to be read in open court, a judgment
read or signed in chambers without
authorization of counsel or litigants
is a nullity. — Hammond Box Co. v.
Carmello Musso & Co., La.App., 172
So. 790— Green v. Frederick, 136 So.
783, 17 La,App. 605—33 C.J. p 1070
note 96 [g].
81. Wash.— Williams v. Briley, 242
P. 370, 137 Wash. 262.
33 C.J. p 1070 note 97—15 C.J. p
826 note 26.
82. IU.-<!obb v. People, 84 HL 511-
33 C.J. p 1070 note 7.
33. Cal.— Glometti v. Etienne, 28 P.
2d 913, 219 Cal. 687— Cadenasso v.
42
Bank of Italy, 6 P.2d 944, 214 Cal.
562.
Or.— Western Athletic Club v.
Thompson, 129 P.2d 828, 169 Or.
514.
Tex.— Williams v. Sinclair-Prairie
Oil Co., Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d 211,
error dismissed, judgment correct
—Weil v. Lewis, Civ.App., 2 S.W.
2d 566.
33 C.J. p 1071 note 9.
84. Mont. — Gaer v. Bank of Baker,
107 P.2d 877, 111 Mont. 204.
33 C.J. p 1071 note 9.
Judge who is stockholder of plain-
tiff bank is disqualified, and has no
jurisdiction to render judgment
which, if rendered, is void. — Cade-
nasso v. Bank of Italy, 6 P.2d 944,
214 Cal. 562,
85. Tex.— Postal Mut. Indemnity Co.
v. Ellis, 169 S.W.2d 482, 140 Tex,
570— Weil v. Lewis, Civ.App., 2 S.
W.2d 566 — Stephenson v. Kirkham,
Civ.App., 297 S.W. 266.
33 C.J. p 1071 note 9.
Void as to other defendants
Judgment void as to one defendant
because of judge's relationship was
void as to other defendants. — Weil
v. Lewis, Tex.Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 566.
*. Tex.— Williams v. Sinclair-Prai-
rie Oil Co., Civ.Ap.p., 135 S.W.2d
211, error dismissed, judgment cor-
rect.
33 C.J. p 1071 note 9 [c].
Issistant county attorney
Where a county judge hearing sec-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 17
or prejudice,87 any judgment by him in disregard
of the prohibition is void. Consent of parties can-
not confer jurisdiction in such cases,88 unless the
statute excepts from its prohibition cases where
the parties consent, in which event consent of par-
ties removes the disqualification to act,89 as would
be the case in the absence of any express prohibi-
tion to act.90
Where there is no absolute prohibition of his act-
ing, the mere fact that the judge is disqualified does
not render the judgment void, although it may ren-
der it voidable or reversible.91 There is authority,
however, holding that such judgments are void even
in the absence of any statutory prohibition.92
While it has been held that, where several judges
constitute the court, and one of them is disquali-
fied, the judgment is void, if such disqualified judge
participated in the hearing and determination,93
there is also authority to the contrary.94 In some
cases it has been held that a disqualified judge may
sit, pro forma, to make a quorum without invali-
dating the judgment, provided he does not otherwise
participate in the proceedings;96 but there is also
authority to the contrary.96 It has been held that
two judges of an appellate court may render a valid
judgment where the third judge has disqualified
himself.97
Entry of formal judgment. A judge who is dis-
qualified in a cause may enter a formal judgment
directed by the appellate court, as in such case he
is not required to exercise any judgment or dis-
cretion.98
c. De Facto Judge
A Judgment rendered by a Judge de facto Is valid.
A judgment rendered by a judge de facto is val-
id.99 On this principle, it has been held that a
judgment rendered by a properly elected judge be-
fore the legal commencement of his term of office,1
or after the expiration of his term,2 is valid
ond liquor prosecution was disquali-
fied because he had been assistant
county attorney at time of first pros-
ecution, judgment rendered on sec-
ond prosecution was void. — Woodland
v. State, 178 S.W.2d 528, 147 Tex.Cr.
84.
87. Ohio.— Wendel v. Hughes, 28 N.
E.2d 686, 64 Ohio App. 310.
Or. — -Western Athletic Club v.
Thompson, 129 P.2d 828, 169 Or.
514.
88. Vt. — Watson v. Payne, 111 A.
462, 94 Vt. 299.
83 C.J. p 1071 note 10,
89. Okl.— Holloway v. Hall, 192 P.
219, 79 Okl..l63.
38 C.J. p 1071 note 12.
Knowledge of facts
Where parties to proceedings to
set aside orders in statutory rehabil-
itation proceeding stipulated to
waiver of disqualification of judge
whose sister owned stock in delin-
quent insurer under statute relating
to disqualification of judges, and
waiver was not specifically limited
to ownership by sister of stock, un-
awareness of plaintiff when signing
stipulation that sister was a mem-
ber of two stockholders' committees,
one of which was a party to proceed-
ings to set aside orders, did not ren-
der judgment void.— Neblett v. Pa-
cific Mut Life Ins. Co. of California,
139 P.2d 934, 22 Cal.2d 393, certiorari
denied 64 S.Ct. 428, 320 U.S. 802,
88 L.Ed. 484.
90. N.H.— Stearns v. Wright, 51 N.
H. 600.
33 C.J. p 1071 note 18.
91. Ala.— Phillips v. State, App., 24
So.2d 226.
Ind. — State ex rel. Krodel v. Gilkison,
198 N.E. 323, 209 Ind. 213.
Ohio.— Tari v. State, 159 N.B. 594, |
117 Ohio St. 481, 67 A.L.R. 284.
Okl.— Mansfield, Sizer & Gardner v.
Smith, 16 P.2d 1066, 160 Okl. 298—
Dancy v. Owens, 258 P. 879, 126
Okl. 37— State v. Davenport, 256 P.
340, 125 Okl. 1.
S.C.— Sandel v. Crum, 125 S.B. 919,
130 S.C. 317.
33 C.J. p 1071 note 14.
At common, law
U.S.— Crites v. Radtke, D.C.N.T., 29
F.Supp. 970— In re Fox West Coast
Theatres, D.C.Cal., 25 F.Supp. 250,
affirmed, C.C.A., 88 F.2d 212, cer-
tiorari denied Tally v. Fox Film
Corporation, 57 S.Ct. 944, 301 U.S.
710, 81 LJEd. 1363, rehearing de-
nied 58 S.Ct 7, 302 U.S. 772, 82
L.Ed. 598.
Ind.— State, ex rel. Krodel v. Gilki-
son, 198 N.E. 323, 209 Ind. 213.
92. Ky.— Hall v. Blackard, 182 S.
W.2d 904, 298 Ky. 354— Common-
wealth v. Murphy, 174 S.W.2d 681,
295 Ky. 466— Coquillard Wagon
Works v. Melton, 125 S.W. 291,
137 Ky. 189.
93. N.T.— Oakley v. Aspinwall, 8 N.
T. 547.
33 C.J. p 1071 note 16.
JtLdge necessary to make quorum
The judgment is void if the dis-
qualified judge is necessary to make
a quorum. — Stockwell v. White Lake,
22 Mich. 341.
94. N.D.— State v. Kositzky, 166 N.
W. 634, «8 N.D. 616.
"The mere presence of, and par-
ticipation by, a member of a judicial
body disqualified to act in a par-
ticular case, does not necessarily in-
validate the proceedings and judg-
ment of that body. Particularly is
this true if his presence is not nee-
43
essary to constitute a quorum, or his
vote does not determine the result"
—State v. Kositzky, 166 N.W. 534,
535, 38 N.D. 616, L.R.A.1918D 237.
95. Utah. — Nephi Irr. Co. v. Jenkins,
32 P. 699, 8 Utah 452.
Wis. — Rogan v. Walker, 1 Wis. 597.
Fro tempore member
A decision of district court of ap-
peal was not void because the judge
who tried the case appealed from
was a member of appellate tribunal
pro tempore and sat on the bench
when case was argued, where such
judge did not participate in decision
and specifically disqualified himself.
— Bracey v. Gray, Cal.App., 162 P.2d
314, motion granted and certiorari
denied Gray v. Bracey, 66 S.Ct. 961.
96. Wis.— Case v. Hoffman, 72 N.W.
390, 100 Wis. 314, 44 L.R.A. 728,
vacated 74 N.W. 220, 100 Wis. 314,
44 L.R.A. 728, reheard 75 N.W.
945, 100 Wis. 314, 44 L.R.A. 728.
97. Tex. — Marshburn v. Stewart,
Civ.App., 295 S.W. 679.
98. U.S. — Clarke v. Chicago, B. '&
Q. R. Co., CC.A.Wyo., 62 F.2d 440,
certiorari denied 54 S.Ct 49, three
cases, 290 U.S. 629, 78 L.Ed. 54$.
33 C.J. p 1072 note 21.
Entry generally see infra § 106.
99. Colo. — Rude v. Sisack, 96 P.
976, 44 Colo. 21.
N.T.— McLear v. Balmat, 223 N.T.S.
76, 129 Misc. 805, reversed on oth-
er grounds 230 N.T.S. 259, 224 App.
Div. 306, modified 231 N.T.S. 581,
224 AppJDiv. 366.
Ohio. — Demereaux v. State, 172 NJ33.
551, 35 Ohio App. 418.
33 C.J. p 1072 note 23.
1. Va,— McCraw v. Williams, 83
Gratt 510, 74 Va. 510.
2. Cal.— Merced Bank v. Bosenthal,
§ 17
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
d. Special Judge
A Judgment rendered by a special or substitute Judge
Is valid where such a Judge has been duly appointed
and Is authorized to act.
A judgment rendered by a special or substitute
judge is valid where such a judge has been duly
appointed and is authorized to act8 A judgment
rendered by a- special judge without proper author-
ity is a nullity,4 as where the appointment of a spe-
cial judge was unauthorized.5
§ 18. Formal Proceedings
It Is essential to the existence and validity of a
Judgment that the decision shall have been rendered In
an action or proceeding before the court, In some form
recognized and sanctioned by law.
It is essential to the existence and validity of a
judgment that the decision shall have been rendered
in an action or proceeding before the court,6 in
some form recognized and sanctioned, by law.? The
established modes of procedure must be followed,8
although mere irregularities in the proceedings will
not necessarily invalidate the judgment.9 Accord-
ingly, a judgment in a court of record must be
based on definite and regular proceedings, which
the record must disclose.10 Likewise, as a general
rule, before a valid judgment may be rendered
against a defendant, he must be accorded an op-
portunity to be heard and present his defense,11 and
for this purpose, as discussed infra § 23, he must
be given notice of the action or proceeding against
him. It has been held that it is not essential to the
validity of a judgment against a defendant in a
civil action that he be present at any of the pro-
si P. 849, 99 Cal. 39, reheard 33 P.
732, 99 Cal. 39.
33 C.J. p 1072 note 25.
3, Ariz, — Payne v. Williams, 56 P.
2d 186, 47 Ariz. 396.
Ark. — Moffett v. Texarkana Forest
Park Pavtog, Sewer, and Water
Dist. No. 2, 26 S.W.2d 589, 181
Ark. 474.
N.D.— Olson v. Donnelly, 294 N.W.
666, 70 N.D. 370.
Tex. — Boone v. Likens-Waddill Mo-
tor Co., Civ.App., 49 S.W.2d 979.
Power of successor judge to render
judgment in proceeding begun be-
fore predecessor see Judges § 56.
Entry on record of agreement of
counsel for appointment of judge ad
litem has been held not essential to
validity of judgment.— TT, S. Fidelity
& Guaranty Co. v. Tucker, 159 So.
787, 118 Fla. 430.
Failure to take oath
The failure of a special Judge to
take oath of office has been held not
to render his judgments void.
Kan, — In re Hewes, 62 P. 673, 62
Kan. 288.
W.Va.— Tower v. Whip, 44 S.E. 179,
53 W.Va, 158, 63 L.R.A, 937.
Judge pro tempore
Where Judge pro tempore was se-
lected by agreement of parties after
disqualification of district Judge by
affidavit of prejudice, Judgment of
judge pro tempore was as valid and
as binding on parties as though it
had been rendered by presiding
Judge of district — Moruzzi v. Fed-
eral Life & Casualty Co., 75 P.2d
320, 42 N.M. 35, 115 A.L.R. 407.
Waiver, of irregularity
It has been held that, where de-
fendants waived an Irregularity in
the appointment of a special judge,
a judgment rendered by sudh judge
is not void. — Winters v. Allen, 62
S.W.2d 51, 166 Tenn. 281.
4. Fla. — Sapp v. McConnon & Co.,
169 So. 622, 124 Fla. 879.
111.— Healy v. Mobile & O. R. Co.,
161 IlLApp. 138.
Ind.— Herbster V; State, 80 I-nd. 484.
Ky.— Ooleman v. Mullins, 288 S.W.
701, 216 Ky. 761.
Mo.— Cook v. Cook, 68 S.W.2d 900,
228 Mo.App. 478.
Tex*— Younger Bros. v. Turner, Civ.
App., 132 S.W.2d 632— Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co. v. Painter, Civ.App.,
64 S.W.2d 828 — Clements v. Fort
Worth & D. S. P. Ry. Co., Civ.App.,
7 S.W.2d 895.
Signing at chambers
Special judge, unless duly commis-
sioned to hold and holding court in
county or courts of Judicial district
when signing judgment at chambers,
was without authority in premises. —
Bohannon v. Virginia Trust Co., 153
S.E. 263, 198 N.C. 702.
5. Ky. — Bark v. Springton Coal Co,,
124 S.Wl2d 760, 276 Ky. 501.
Tex— Bailey v. Triplett Bros;, Civ.
App., 278 S.W. 250.
33 C.J. p 1072 note 28.
& N.Y. — Booth v. Kingsland Ave,
Bldg. Ass'n, 46 N.T.S. 457, 18 App.
Div. 407, 408.
33 C.J. p 1072 note 29.
7. Colo. — O'Brophy v. Bra Gold Mln.
Co., 85 P. 679, 36 Colo. 247.
Mo.— In re Buckles, 53 S.W.2d 1055,
331 Mo. 405.
33 C.J. p 1072 note 30.
8. Me.— Ex parte Davis, 41 Me. 38,
58.
33 C.J. p 1072 note 31*
9. Failure to give notice adjourn-
ing ease was a mere irregularity,
not invalidating judgment. — Intercity
Carnival Co. v. niions, 239 N.T.S.
128, 136 Misc. 56.
10. Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in,
City of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P.
418, 429, 147 dkl. 179.
33 C.J. p 1132 note 79.
11. U.S.— Sylvan Beach v. Koch, C
44
C.A.Mo., 140 F.2d 852— In re Noell,
C.C.A.MO., 93 F.2d 5— Smith v.
Stark Trucking, D.C.Ohio. 53 F.
Supp. 826 — Fisher v. Jordan, D.C.
Tex., 32 F.Supp. 608, reversed on
other grounds, C.C.A., 116 F.2d 198,
certiorari denied Jordan v. Fisher,
61 S.Ct. 734, 312 U.S. 697, 85 U
Ed. 1132.
Cal.— Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246, 203
Cal. 306.
D.C. — IT. S. ex reL Ordmann v. Cum-
mings, 85 F.2d 273. 66 App. B.C.
107.
Ga.— Elliott v. Adams, 160 S.E. 336,
173 Ga. 312— Walton v. Wilkinson
Bolton Co., 123 S.E. 103, 158 Ga,
13.
111.— Alward v. Borah, 44 N.E.2d 865,
381 111. 134— Hauser v. Power, 183
N.E. 580, 351 111. 36— In re Shanks'
Estate, 282 IlLApp. 1.
Ky.— Jasper v. Tartar. 7 S.W.2d 236,
224 Ky. 834.
Mo.— Ex parte Irwin, 6 S.W.2d 597,
320 Mo. 20— State ex reL National
Lead Co. v. Smith, App., 134 S.W.
2d 1061.
N.J. — Redzlna v. Provident Inst. for
Savings in Jersey City, 125 A. 133,
96 N.J.EQ. 346.
N.T. — Rochester Sav. Bank v. Mon-
roe County, 8 N.Y.S.2d 107, 169'
Misc. 526.
N.D.— Baird V. Ellison, 293 N.W.
794, 70 N.D. 261.
Or.— Kerns v. Couch, 17 P.2d 323, 141
Or. 147.
Pa.— In re Galli's Estate, 17 A.2d
899, 340 Pa. 561.
Tex. — Bozeman v. Arlington Heights
Sanitarium, Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d
350, error refused — Moorhe-ad v.
Transportation Bank of Chicago,
111., Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 184.
Va.— Moore v. Smith, 15 S.E.2d 48,
177 Va. 621.
Wash.— Morley v. Morley, 230 P. 645,
131 Wash. 540.
33 CJ. p 1080 note 96.
49 C.J.S.
.JUDGMENTS
§ 19
ceedings following a proper summons to bring him
before the court.12
§ 19. Jurisdiction
a. In general
b. Jurisdiction of person
c. Jurisdiction of subject matter or cause
of action
d. Jurisdiction of question determined
and relief granted
a. In General
A judgment rendered by a court having no Jurisdic-
tion Is a mere nullity.
A judgment rendered by a court having no ju-
risdiction is a mere nullity, and will be so held and
treated whenever and for whatever purpose it is
sought to be used or relied on as a valid judg-
ment.1^ Where a court is without jurisdiction, it
is generally irregular to make any order in the
12. Ariz. — Potter v. Home Owners'
Loan Corporation, 72 P.2d 429, 50
Ariz. 285.
Necessity of presence of parties at
trial generally see the C.J.S. title
Trial § 40, also 64 C.J. p 69 note
90-p 70 note 3.
13. U.S.— Green v. City of Stuart,
C.C.A.Fla., 101 F.2d 309, certioraii
denied 59 S.Ct 827, 307 U.S. 626,
83 L.Ed. 1510— Albion-Idaho Land
Co. v. Naf Irr. Co., C.OA.Utah,
97 F.2d 439 — In re Lake Champlain
Pulp & Paper Corporation, B.C.
N.Y., 20 F.2d 425.
Cal.— In re Gardiner's Estate, 114
P.2d 643, 45 Cal.App.2d 559.
Colo.— Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
v. Board of Com'rs of Fremont
County, 87 P.2d 761, 95 Colo. 435.
D.C. — U. S. ex rel. Tungsten Reef
Mines Co. v. Ickes, 84 F.2d 257, 66
App.D.C. 3.
Fla. — Mai one v. Meres, 109 So. 677,
91 Fla. 709.
Ga.— City of Albany v. Parks, 5 S.
E.2d 680, 61 GeuApp. 55.
Idaho. — East Side Lumber Co. T.
Malmgren, 277 P. 554, 47 Idaho
560 — Williams v, Sherman, 212 P.
971, 36 Idaho 494.
111.— Atkins v. Atkins, 65 N.E.2d 801,
393 111. 202— Martin v. Schillo, 60
N.E.2d 392, 389 111. 607, certiorari
denied 65 S.Ct • 1572, 325 U.S. 880,
89 L.Ed. 1996— Sharp v. Sharp, 164
N.B. 685, 333 111. 267— People v.
Brewer, 160 N.B. 76, 328 111. 472—
Albers v. Bramberg, 32 N.E.2d 362,
308 Ill.App. 463— Jardine v. Jar-
dine, 9 N.E.2d 645, 291 Ill.App. 152
— Webster Grocer Co. v. Gammel, 1
N.E.2d 890, 285 IlLApp. 277— Eddy
v. Dodson, 242 Ill.App. 508 — Gary v.
Senseman, 215 Ill.App. 232.
3towa. — Stier v. Iowa State Travel-
in? Men's Asa'n, 201 N.W. 328,
199 Iowa 118, 59 A.L.R. 1384.
:Ky.— Thacker v. Phillips' Adm'r, 281
S.W. 831, 213 Ky. 687.
;La. — Whitney Central Trust & Sav-
ings Bank v. Norton, 102 So. 306,
157 La, 199— Smith v. Shehee,
App., 143 So. 339, amended 144 So.
750.
iMe.— In re Williams' Estate, 41 A.
2d 825, 141 Me. 219— Appeal of
Kelley, 1 A.2d 183, 136 Me. 7.
:*ld. — Fooks* Ex*rs v. Ghingher, 192
A. 782, 172 Md. 612, certiorari de-
nied Phillips v. Ghingher, 58 S.Ct.
47, 302 U.S. 726, 82 L.Ed. 561.
Mass.— Holt v. Holt, 153 N.B. 397,
257 Mass. 114.
Mich.— Ward v. Hunter Machinery
Co., 248 N.W. 864, 263 Mich. 445.
Mo.— In re Buckles, 53 S.W.2d 1055,
331 Mo. 405— State ex rel. Hogan
v. Meyers, App., 26 S.W.2d 816.
Mont — Oregon Mortg. Co. v. Kun-
neke, 245 P. 539, 76 Mont. 117.
N.J.— Giresi v. Giresi, 44 A.2d 345
— Kaufman v. Smathers, 166 A.
453, 111 N.J.Law 52— Corpus Juris
cited in, Keller v. American Cya-n-
amid Co., 28 A.2d 41, 46, 132 N.J.
Bq. 210. .
N.T. — Oberlander v. Oberlander, 89
N.T.S.2d 139, 179 Misc. 459 — Cor-
pus Juris quoted in Van Buren v.
Harrison, 299 N.Y.S. 485, 486, 164
Misc. 774 — Clarke v. Carlisle Foun-
dry Co., 270 N.T.S. 351, 150 Misc.
710.
N.C.— Ward v. Agrillo, 139 S.B. 451,
194 N.C. 321— Clark v. Carolina
Homes, 128 S.E. 20, 189 N.C. 703.
Ohio. — Sampliner v. Bialosky, 25
Ohio N.P.,N.S., 161.
Okl.— O. C. Whitaker, Inc., v. Dil-
lingham, 152 P.2d 371, 194 Okl. 421
— Corpus Juris cited in Fltzsim-
mons v. Oklahoma City, 135 P.2d
340, 342, 192 Okl. 248— Hinkle v.
Jones, 66 P.2d 1073, 180 Okl. 17—
St Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
v. Bayne, 40 P.2d 1104, 170 Okl.
542 — Henson v. Oklahoma State
Bank, 23 P.2d 709, 165 Okl. 1—
Tulsa Terminal, Storage & Trans-
fer Co. v, Thomas, 18 P.2d 891,
162 OkL 5.
Pa. — In re Patterson's Estate, 19 A.
2d 165, 341 Pa. 177— Mamlin v.
Tener, 23 A.2d 90, 146 BauSuper.
593-t-Mintz v. Mlntz, 83 Pa.Super.
85.
S.D. — Hurley v. Coursey, 265 N.W. 4,
64 S.D. 131— In re Schafer's Estate,
209 N.W. 355, 50 S.D. 232, adhered
to In re Schafer's Estate, 216 N.
W. 948, 52 S.D. 182.
Tenn. — Johnson v. White, 106 S.W,
2d 222, 171 Tenn. 536— Ward v.
Lovell, 113 S*W.2d 759, 21 Tenn.
App. 560— Western Automobile
Casualty Co. v. Burnell, 71 S.W.2d
474, 17 Tenn.App. 687.
Tex.— Conn v. Campbell, 24 S.W.2d
813, 119 Tex. 82— Leslie v. Griffin,
45
Com. App., 25 S.W.2d 820 — Renshaw
v. Wise County, Civ.App., 142 S.W.
2d 578 — Green v. Duncan, Civ. App.,
134 S.W.2d 744 — Galley v. Hedrick,
Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 978— Askew
V. Roundtree, Civ.App., 120 S.W.
2d 117, error dismissed — Fowzer
v. Huey & Philp Hardware Co.,
Civ.App.f 99 S.W.2d 1100, error
dismissed — Westerly Supply Cor-
poration v. State, Civ. App., 89 S.W.
2d 244— Corpus Juris cited in Wil-
kinson v. Owens, Civ.App., 72 S.W.
2d 330, 335— King v. King, Civ.
App.t 291 S.W. 645— Glenn v. Dal-
las County Bois D'Arc Island
Levee Dist, Civ.App., 282 S.W. 339,
reversed on other grounds Dallas
County Bois D'Arc Island Levee
Dist v. Glenn, Com.App., 288 S.W.
165.
Va. — Corpus Juris cited in Bray v.
Landergren, 172 S.B. 252, 257, 161
Va. 699.
Vt— Roddy v. Fitzgerald's Estate,
35 A,2d 668, 113 Vt. 472.
Wash.— Parr v. City of Seattle, 84 P.
2d 375, 197 Wash. 53.
W.Va.—Perkins v. Hall, 17 S.E.2d
795, 123 W.Va. 707— Corpus Jurto
cited i» Pettry v. Shi-nn, 196 S.E.
385, 386, 120 W.Va. 20.
33 C.J. p 1073 note 33.
Jurisdiction generally see Courts 55
15-119.
"A judgment rendered without Ju-
risdiction is a nullity and the party
against whom it is entered may
Ignore it and proceed as though no
attempt had ever been made to ren-
der it" — Moeur v. Ashfork Livestock
Co., 61 P.2d 395, 897, 48 Ariz. 298.
Other statements of rule
(1) Where a court acts without
authority, its judgments are nulli-
ties.
D.C. — TJ. S. ex rel. Ordmann v. Cum-
mings, 85 F.2d 273, 66 App.D.C.
107.
Fla. — Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677*
91 Fla. 709.
N.M.— State v. Patten, 69 P.2d 931,
41 N.M. 395.
(2) Judgment is void where ju-
risdictional fact on which court's
authority to act depends is absent —
Turk v. Turk, 18 S.W.2d 1003. 230
Ky. 191.
(8) "Without jurisdiction there ia
no validity or vitality to the 'Judg-
§ 19
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
cause except to dismiss the suit** The validity of
a judgment depends on the jurisdiction of the court
before rendition, not on what may occur subse-
quently.16 It has been stated, however, that it
cannot be broadly asserted that a judgment is al-
ways a nullity if jurisdiction of some sort or other
is wanting.1**
Loss of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction which has once
attached may be lost, and thereby the court may
be deprived of the authority to make any further
order or judgment,17 as where the case has been
taken up on appeal or error,1* or duly removed
from a state court to a federal court.19 So juris-
diction may be lost and the authority of the court
terminated by the expiration of the term without
judgment rendered and without a proper continu-
ance.20
Error in exercise of jurisdiction. Want of ju-
risdiction must be distinguished from error in the
exercise of jurisdiction.21 Where jurisdiction has
once attached, mere errors or irregularities in the
proceedings, however grave, although they may ren-
der the judgment erroneous and subject to be set
aside in a proper proceeding for that purpose, will
not render the judgment void,22 and, as discussed
infra § 449, until set aside it is valid and binding
."— Carroll v. Berber, 150 N.B.
870, 872. 255 Mass. 132.
(4) A judgment rendered by a
court without Jurisdiction is not a
final and binding judgment. — In re
Waters' Estate, Mo.App., 153 S.W.
2d 774.
(5) A court cannot render valid
judgment In case of which it has no
potential jurisdiction.—- Kirk v. Head,
152 S.W.2d 726, 187 Tex. 44.
(6) Where court is inherently
without power to hear and deter-
mine, any judgment rendered is a
mere nullity. — United Production
Corporation v. Hughes, 152 S.W.2d
327, 137 Tex. 21.
14. U.S.— New Orleans Mail Co. v.
Flanders, La., 12 Wall. ISO, 20 L.
Ed. 249.
38 C.J. p 1074 note 37.
15. Tex.— Hicks v. Sias, Civ.App.,
102 S.W.2d 460, error refused.
16. U.S.— -Carter v. U. S., C.C.A.Ala.,
135 F.2d 858.
Necessity of record
A judgment is not void in the
legal sense for want of jurisdiction
unless its invalidity and want of
Jurisdiction appear on the record,
but is merely voidable.— ^Tupe v.
Home Owners Loan Corp., Okl., 167
P,2d 46— Edwards v. Smith, 142 P.
302, 42 Okl. 544.
Jurisdictional defects as grounds for
collateral attack on judgments see
infra §§ 421-427.
17. HI.— People ex rel. Waite v,
Bristbw, 62 N.E.2d 545, 391 ffl.
101— Watkins v. Dunbar, 149 N.B
14, 318 I1L 174.
Ky.— Combs v. Beaton, 251 S.W. 638
199 Ky. 477.
Wis.— State ex reL Lang v. Civil
Court of Milwaukee County. 280
N.W. 347, 228 Wis. 411.
33 C.J. p 1074 note 38.
Ancillary matter
Where jurisdiction to render
judgment is ended, no jurisdiction
remains as to matter purely ancil
lary to that object, — Cutrone v. Cut
rone, 29 N.T.S.2d 405, 176 Miac, 988
affirmed 80 N.T.S.2d 813, 262 App.
Div. 992.
18. Mass.— Boynton v. Foster, 7
Mete. 415.
19. Minn. — Roberts v. Chicago, St.
P. M. & O. R. Co., 51 N.W. 478,
48 Minn. 521.
20. Wis.— Witt v. Henze, 16 N.W.
609, 58 Wis. 244.
Rendition of judgment during term
see supra 8 16 b.
21. Mich.— Corpus Juris quoted i»
Jackson City Bank & Trust Co. v.
Frederick, 260 N.W. 908, 910, 271
Mich. 538. '
Wash. — In re Waters of Doan Creek,
299 P. 383. 162 Wash. 695.
22. Ala. — Corpus Juris cited in
James v. State, 181 So. 709, 712,
28 Ala. App. 225.
Ark.— Corpus Juris cited in, Ex parte
O'Neal, 87 S.W.2d 401, 403, 191
Ark. 696.
Fla.— Childs v. Boots, 152 So. 212,
112 Fla. 277— Malone v. Meres, 109
So. 677, 91 Fla. 709.
Ga. — Lester v. Southern Security Co.,
147 S.B. 529, 168 Ga, 307— Corpus
Juris cited in Georgia Power Co. v.
Friar, 171 S.B. 210, 214, 47 Ga.App.
675, affirmed 175 S.B. 807, 179 Ga.
470.
Idaho.— Baldwin v. Anderson, 299 P.
341, 50 Idaho 606, certiorari grant-
ed American Surety Co. of New
York v. Baldwin, 52 S.Ct. 499, 286
U.S. 536, 76 L.Ed. 1275, and certio-
rari dismissed American Surety
Co. v. Baldwin, 53 S.Ct. 98, 287 U.
S. 166, 77 L.Ed. 231, 86 A.L.R.
HI. — Heitman Trust Co. v. Parlee, 40
N.E.2d 732, 314 IlLApp. 83— Corpus
Juris cited in. Hampton v. Grissom,
4 N.B.2d 895, 287 IlLApp. 294—
Seither & Cherry Co. v. Board of
Education of District No. 15, Town
of La Harpe, 283 IlLApp. 892—
Knapik v. Stefek, 274 IlLApp. 19
Ind. — Freimann v. Gallmeier, App.,
63 N.E.2d 150.
Ky.— Stewart v. Sampson, 148 S.W.2d
278, 285 Ky. 447— Henderson v.
Commonwealth, 251 S.W. 988, 199
Ky. 795.
46
Mich.— Corpus Juris quoted In Jack-
son City Bank & Trust Co. v.
Frederick, 260 N.W. 908, 910, 271
Mich. 538.
N.C.— Fowler v. Fowler, 130 S.B. 815,
190 N.C. 536.
Okl. — Protest of St. Louis-San Fran-
cisco Ky. Co., 26 P.2d 212, 166 Okl.
50.
Or. — Lytle v. Payette-Oregon Slope
Irr. Dist, 152 P.2d 934, 156 A.L.R.
894.
Tex.— Corpus Juris cited in, Texas
Employers* Ins. Ass'n v. Bzell,
Com.App., 14 S.W.2d 1018, 1019,
rehearing denied 16 S.W.2d 528
— Waples Platter Co. v. Miller,
Civ.App., 139 S.W.2d 833— Ameri-
can Law Book Co. v. Dykes, Civ.
App., 278 S.W. 247.
Wash. — Corpus Juris quoted in In re
Waters of Doan Creek in Walla
Walla County, 299 P. 883, 162
Wash. 695.
Wyo. — State v. District Court of
Eighth Judicial Dist. within and
for Natrona County, 260 P. 174, 37
Wyo. 169.
33 C.J. P 1079 note 82—34 C.J. p 508
note 7.
Operation and effect of void and
voidable judgments see infra 55
449-452.
Other statements of rule
(1) A Judgment is <not void, even
though it may be erroneous if court
had jurisdiction of person of defend-
ant and of the subject matter of the
suit and had power to render par-
ticular Judgment which it entered,
and such a Judgment is valid until
reversed. — People ex rel. Merrill v.
Hazard, 196 N.E. 827, 361 HI. 60.
(2) Where court of general Juris-
diction has Jurisdiction of subject
matter and parties, «no Judgment it
may render within the issues is void,
however erroneous it may be.— City
of Huntington v. Northern Indiana
Power Co., 5 N.B.2d 889, 211 Ind. 502,
dissenting opinion 6 N.B.2d 335, 211
Ind. 502.
(3) Where a court has Jurisdiction
over the person and the subject
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
19
for all purposes. Error in the determination of
questions of law or fact on which the court's ju-
risdiction in the particular case depends, the court
having general jurisdiction of the cause and the
person, is error in the exercise of jurisdiction.23
1>. Jurisdiction of Person
A judgment in personam Is void unless the court
has jurisdiction of the persons Involved.
A judgment in personam is void unless the court
has jurisdiction of the persons involved.24 The
matter, no error in the exercise of
such jurisdiction can make the judg-
ment void even if there is a funda-
mental error of law appearing on the
face of the record and such judgment
is valid until avoided.— Mahaffa v.
Mahaffa, 298 N.W. 916, 230 Iowa 679.
(4) A judgment is never void for
error, provided the court rendering
it had jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant and the subject
matter of the action. — Sheridan v*
Sheridan, 4 N.W.2d 785, 218 Minn. 24.
Property rights
Where a court in the exercise of
its jurisdiction enters a decree af-
fecting property rights contrary to
statute, the court is guilty of error
of judgment, but such error does not
render the decree void, nor does the
fact that the error may appear on
the face of the decree itself indi-
cate its nullity. — In re Gardiner's
Estate, 114 P.2d 648, 45 Cal.App.2d
659.
23. Ala.— Corpus Juris cited in
James v. State, 181 So. 709, 712,
28 Ala.App. 225.
Ariz. — Wall v. Superior Court of
Tavapai County, 89 P.2d 624, 58
Ariz. 344.
Mich. — Corpus Juris quoted in Jack-
son City Bank & Trust Co. v.
Frederick, 260 N.W. 908, 910, 271
Mich. 588.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Fergu-
son v. Ferguson, Civ.App., 98 S.W.
2d 847, 850.
33 C.J. p 1079 note 88.
24. U.S.— Buss v. Prudential Ins.
Co. of America, COAJowa, 126
F.2d 960— Mulcahy v. Whitehill,
D.C.Mass., 48 F.Supp. 917— In re
American Fidelity Corporation, D.
C.Cal., 28 F.Supp. 462— Baskin v.
Montedonico, D.CTenn., 26 F.Supp.
894, affirmed, C.C.A., 115 F.2d 837
— U. S. v. U. S. Fidelity & Guar-
anty Co., D.C.Okl., 24 F.Supp. 961,
modified on other grounds, C.C.A.,
106 F.2d 804, reversed on other
grounds 60 S.Ct 653, 309 U.S. 506,
84 L.Bd. 894.
Ala.-— Farrell v. Farrell, 10 So.2d 153,
243 Ala. 389— Ex parte Kelly, 128
So. 443, 221 Ala. 339— Corpus JHxi»
cited in Ex parte Whitehead, 199
So. 876, 878, 29 Ala,App. 583, cer-
tiorari denied 199 So. 879, 240
Ala. 447.
Alaska.— In re Young's Estate, 9
Alaska 158.
Ariz.— Varnes v. White, 12 P.2d 870,
40 Ariz. 427.
Cal. — Hunter v. Superior Court in
and for Riverside County, 97 P.2d
492, 36 Cal.App.2d 100— Northing-
ton v. Industrial Accident Commis-
sion, 72 P.2d 909, 23 Cal.App.2d
255— Ex parte Cohen, 290 P. 512,
107 CaLApp. 288— Jellen v. O'Brien,
264 P. 1115, 89 CaLApp. 505.
Conn. — O'Leary v. Waterbury Title
Co., 166 A. 673, 117 Conn. 39.
D.C. — U. S. ex rel. Ordmann v. Cum-
mings, 85 F.2d 273, 66 App.D.C.
.107.
Fia,— United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America v.
Graves Inv. Co., 15 So.2d 196, 153
Fla. 529 — Skipper v. Schumacker,
169 So. 58, 124 Fla. 384, appeal dis-
missed and certiorarl denied 57
S.Ct 39, 299 U.S. 507, 81 L.Ed.
376— Coslick v. Finney, 140 So. 216,
104 Fla. 394.
Ga.— McKnight v. Wilson, 122 S.E.
702, 158 Ga. 153— W. T. Rawleigh
Co. v. Greenway, 26 S.K2d 458, 69
Ga.App. 590 — Anderson v. Turner,
133 S.E. 306, 35 Ga.App. 428.
HI.— People ex reL Fisher v. Balti-
more & O. R. Co., 61 N.E.2d 382,
390 111. 389— Heitman Trust Co. v.
Parlee, 40 N.E.2d 732, 314 Ill.App.
83 — Sunbeam Heating Co. v. Cham-
bers, 38 N.E.2d 544, 312 Ill.App.
382— Davis v. Oliver, 25 N.E.2d
905, 304 IlLApp. 71— In re Shanks'
Estate, 282 Ill.App. 1.
Ind. — Calumet Teaming & Trucking
Co. v. Young, 33 N.B.2d 109, 218
Ind. 468, rehearing denied 33 N.E.
2d 583, 218 Ind. 468.
Ky.— Hill v. Walker, 180 S.W.2d 93,
297 Ky. 257, 154 A.L.R. 814— Gover
v. Wheeler, 178 S.W.2d 404, 296
Ky. 734 — Max Ams, Inc., v. Barker,
170 S.W.2d 45, 293 Ky. 698— Wag-
ner v. Peoples Building & Loan
Ass'n, 167 S.W.2d 825, 292 Ky. 691
— Lowther v. Moss, 39 S.W.2d 501,
239 Ky, 290— Lorton v. Ashbrook,
295 S.W. 1027, 220 Ky. 830.
Mass. — Carroll v. Berger, 150 N.E.
870, 255 Mass. 132.
Mo. — State ex reL National Lead Co.
v. Smith, App., 134 S.W.2d 1061.
N.Y. — Carbone v. Carbone, 2 N.T.S.
2d 869, 166 Misc. 924— Corpus Jo-
ris quoted, in Universal Credit Co.
v. Blfoxderman, 288 N.T.S. 79, 80,
158 Misc. 917— In re Killough's Es-
tate, 265 N.Y.S. 301, 148 Misc. 73—
Shaul v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland, 227 N.Y.S. 163, 131 Misc.
401, affirmed 230 N.Y.S. 910, 224
App.Div. 773.
N.C.— Clark v. Carolina Homes, 128
S.B. 20, 189 NXX 703.
Ohio. — Terry v. Claypool, 65 N.E.2d
47
883, 77 Ohio App. 77— Ruckert v.
Matil Realty, App., 40 N.E.2d 688
— Sampliner v. Bialosky, 25 Ohio
N.P..N.S., 161.
Okl. — Fitzsimmons v. Oklahoma City,
135 -P.2d 340, 192 Okl. 248— Okla-
homa City v. Robinson, 65 P.2d
531, 179 Okl. 309— Moroney v. State
ex reL Southern Surety Co., 31 P.
2d 926, 168 Okl. 69— Henson v. Ok-
lahoma State Bank, 23 P.2d 709,
165 Okl. i — State v. Armstrong, 13
P.2d 198, 158 Okl. 290.
Tex. — Kuteman v. Ratliff, Civ.App.,
154 S.W.2d 684 — Olton State Bank
v. Howell, Civ.App., 105 S.W.2d
287 — San Jacinto Finance Corpo-
ration v. Perkins, Civ.App., 94 S.
W.2d 1213— Simms Oil Co. v.
Butcher, Civ.App., 55 S.W.2d 192,
error dismissed — Reed v. State,
Cr., 187 S.W.2d 660.
Va. — Robertson v. Commonwealth,
25 S.E.2d 352, 181 Va. 520, 146
A.L.R. 966.
33 C.J. p 1074 note 43.
Other statements of ruU
(1) Jurisdiction of the person is
essential to the rendition of a valid
judgment.
Cal.— Jellen v. O'Brien, 264 P. 1115,
89 CaLApp. 505.
Fla. — Arcadia Citrus Growers Ass'n
v. Hollingsworth, 185 So. 431, 135
Fla. 322.
Mich. — Ward v. Hunter Machinery
Co., 248 N.W. 864, 263 Mich. 445.
N.M. — State ex rel. State Tax Com-
mission v. Chavez, 101 P.2d 889,
44 N.M. 260— In re Field's Es-
tate, 60 P.2d 945, 40 N.M. 423.
Tex. — -Commander v. Bryon, Civ.App.,
123 S.W.2d 1008.
Vt.— In re Hanrahan's Will, 194 A.
471, 109 Vt 108.
(2) Jurisdiction of the party, ob-
tained by the court in some way al-
lowed by law, is essential to enable
the court to give a valid judgment
against him. — Powell v. Turpin, 29
S.E.2d 26, 224 N.C. 67— City of Mon-
roe v. Niven, 20 S.E.2d 311, 221 N.
C. 362— Casey v. Barker, 14 S.E.2d
429, 219 N.C. 465.
(3) It is essential to the efficacy
of a judgment that the court have
jurisdiction over the person. — Crab-
tree v. ^Btna Life Ins. Co., Ill S.W.
2d 103, 341 Mo. 1173.
A judgment or portion thereoi
which attempts to settle rights of
parties, over whom the court has no
jurisdiction, is void as to such par-
ties.— Barrett v. Board of Com'rs of
Tulsa County, 90 P.2d 442, 185 Okl.
111.
§ 19
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
court must have jurisdiction of plaintiff or the
person in whose favor it is rendered,26 and also of
defendant or the person against whom it is ren-
dered.26 Accordingly a judgment for or against
one who for any reason is no longer before the
court is wholly void.27 Where a statute requires
that certain actions shall be brought only in the
district or county where defendant resides, it has
been held that no jurisdiction of the person of de-
fendant can be obtained in any district or county
other than the one in which he resides, if defendant
stands on his privilege, and a judgment against Mm
in such other district or county is void for want of
jurisdiction.2*
Consent. Where the court has jurisdiction of the
subject matter or cause of action, jurisdiction of the
parties may be conferred by their consent, and in
such cases the judgment is valid,2& as where de-
fendant waives an exemption from suit and consents
to be sued,80 or waives the privilege of being sued
only in a particular place, county, or district, and
consents to be sued in some other place, county, or
district,31 except where the rights of other persons
would be prejudiced32 or some rule of public pol-
icy requires that defendant shall be sued only in a
designated place.88
c. Jurisdiction of Subject Matter or Cause of
Action
A court cannot render a valid Judgment unless ft
has Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litiga-
tion or the cause of action.
Even with fuir jurisdiction over the parties, no
court can render a valid judgment unless it also has
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litiga-
tion or the cause of action.84 A judgment is whol-
ly void in cases where the subject matter is with-.
25. N.Y.— In re Clark's Witt, 8 N.Y.
S.2d 364, 166 Misc. 909— Corpus
Juris quoted in Universal Credit
Co. v. Binderman, 288 N.Y.a 79,
80, 15 Misc. 917.
38 C.J. p 1075 note 44.
28. Iowa,— Allen v. Allen. 298 N.W.
869. 230 Iowa 504, 136 A.L.R. 617.
Miss.— Bank of Richton v. Jones,
121 So. 823, 153 Miss. 796.
Mo.— Noll v. Alexander, App., 282
S.W. 739.
Neb.— Hassett v. Durbin, 271 N.W.
867, 132 Neb. 315.
Teat. — Maury v. Turner, Cora.App.,
244 S.W. 809.
Va. — Drewry v. Doyle, 20 S,E.2d 548,
179 Va. 715.
Wash.— Colby v. Hiraes, 17 P.2d 606,
171 Wash. 83.
33 C.J. p 1075 note 45.
27. N.T. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Universal Credit Co. v. Binderman,
288 N.T.S. 79, 80, 15 Misc. 917.
33 C.J. p 1075 note 48.
28. La.— Alter v. Pickett, 24 La.
Ann. 513.
33 C.J. p 1075 note 51.
29. Md. — C. L T. Corporation v.
Powell, 170 A. 740, 166 Md. 208.
33 C.J. p 1078 note 77.
33. Mass.— Hall v. Young, 8 Pick.
80, 15 Am.D. 180.
33 C.J. p 1078 <note 78.
31. Tex. — Lloyds Casualty Co. of
New York v. Lena, Civ.App., 62 S.
W.2d 497, error dismissed.
33 C.J. p 1078 note 79.
32. Ga. — Raney v. McRae, 14 Ga.
589, 60 Am.D. 660.
33 C.J. p 1078 note 80.
33. Ga. — Central Bank t. Gibson, 11
Ga. 453.
Creditors
Where neither of defendants was
domiciled in the county in which
suit was brought, a judgment in fa-
vor of a creditor has been held void
as to other creditors. — Anthony v.
Bobo, 81 S.E. 128, 141 Ga. 440.
34. U.S. — Kerna/n v. Campbell, C.C.
A.N.Y., 45 F.2d 123— In re Ameri-
can Fidelity Corporation, D.C.Cal.,
28 F.Supp, 462— U. S. v, U. S. Fi-
delity & Guaranty Co., D.C.Okl.,
24 F.Supp. 961, modified on other
grounds, C.C.A., 106 F.2d 804, re-
versed on other grounds 60 S.Ct
654, -309 U.S. 506, 84 L.Ed. 894.
Ala.— Farrell v. Farrell, 10 So.2d
153, 243 Ala. 389— Ex parte Kelly,
128 So. 443, 221 Ala. 339.
Ariz.— Varnes v. White, 12 P.2d 870,
40 Ariz. 427.
Ark. — Axley v. Hammock, 50 S.W.
2d 608, 185 Ark. 939.
Cal. — Northington v. Industrial Acci-
dent Commission, 72 P.2d 909, 23
Cal.App.2d 255 — Ex parte Cohen,
290 P. 512, 107 CaLApp. 288— Jel-
len v. O'Brien, 264 P.2d 1115, 89
Cal.App. 505.
Conn. — O'Leary v* Waterbury Title
Co., 166 A, 673, 117 Conn. 39.
Flo. — United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America v.
Graves Inv. Co., 15 So.2d 196, 153
Fla. 529 — Arcadia Citrus Growers
Ass'n v. Hollingsworth, 185 So.
431, 135 Fla. 322 — Skipper v. Schu-
macker, 169 So. 58, 124 Fla. 384,
appeal dismissed and certiorari de-
nied 57 S.Ct. 39, 299 U.S. 507, 81
L.Bd. 376— Coslick v. Finney, 140
So. 216. 104 Fla. 394.
Ga. — Deans v. Deans, 137 S.E. 829,
164 Ga. 162 — McKenzie v. Perdue,
19 S.B.2d 765, 67 Ga.App. 202, re-
versed on other grounds Perdue
v. McKenzie, 21 S.B.2d 705, 194
G*a. 356, vacated McKenzie v. Per-
due, 23 S.E.2d 183, 68 Ga.App.
498 — Robinson v. Attapulgus Clay
Co., 189 S.E. 555, 55 Ga.App. 141—
Corpus Juris cited la Georgia
48
Power Co. v. Friar, 171 S.E. 210,
214, 47 Ga.App. 675.
Hawaii.— Meyer v. Territory, 36 Ha-
waii 75 — Wong Kwai Tong v. Choy
Yin, 31 Hawaii 603.
111.— -People ex rel. Fisher v. Balti-
more & O. R. Co., 61 N.E.2d 382,
390 111. 389— Martin v. Schillo, 60
N.E.2d 392, 389 111. 697, certiorari
denied 65 S.Ct 1572, 325 U.S. 880,
89 L.Ed. 1996 — Herb v. Pitcaim, 61
N.B.2d 277, 384 HI. 237, reversed
on other grounds 65 S.Ct 954, 325
U.S. 77, 89 L.Ed. 1483, rehearing
denied 65 S.Ct 1188, 325 U.S. 8-93,
89 L.Ed. 2005. Opinion supple-
mented 64 N.E.2d 318, 392 HI.
151 — Werner v. Illinois Cent R.
Co., 42 NJS.2d 82, 379 HI. 559—
Heitman Trust Co. v. Parlee, 40
N.B.2d 732, 314 Ill.App. 83— Sun-
beam Heating Co. v. Chambers, 38
N.B.2d 544, 312 IlLApp. 382— Davis
v. Oliver, 25 N.B.2d 905, 304 111.
App. 71, transferred, see 20 N.E.2d
582, 371 111. 287— In re Shanks'
Estate, 282 Ill.App. 1.
Ind. — Calumet Teaming & Trucking
Co. v. Young, 33 N.E.2d 109, 218
Ind. 468, rehearing denied 33 N.E.
2d 583, 210 Ind. 468— Brown v.
State, 37 N.B.2d 73, 219 Ind. 251,
137 A.L.B. 679.
Kan.— Corpus Juris cited in Starke
v. Starke, 125 P.2d 738, 740, 155
Kan. 331— Corpus Juris quoted in
.Board of Commissioners of Craw-
ford County v. Radley, 8 P.2d 386,
387, 134 Kan. 704.
Ky. — -Max Ams, Inc. v. Barker, 170
S.W.2d 45, 293 Ky. 698— Wagner
v. Peoples Building & Loan Ass'n,
167 S.W.2d 825, 292 Ky. 691—
Lowther v. Moss, 89 S.W.2d 501,
239 Ky, 290 — Lorton v. Asbrook,
295 S.W. 102?, 220 Ky. 830.
La. — Jones v. Crescent City Ice Mfg.
Co., -3 La.App. 7 — State ex rel.
FOUXTOUX v. Board of Directors of
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
19
held from the jurisdiction of the particular court, or
is placed within the exclusive jurisdiction of anoth-
er court,85 or where the jurisdiction depends on a
statute which was repealed before suit.86 Where
the jurisdiction of a court depends on the amount
in controversy, a judgment for a sum in excess of
the amount over which the court has jurisdiction is
void.87
Consent of parties. Since the agreement or con-
sent of the parties cannot give the court the right
to adjudicate on any cause of action or subject mat-
ter which the law lias withheld from its cogni-
zance, any judgment rendered in such a case is void
notwithstanding such consent or agreement.88
<L Jurisdiction of Question Determined and Be-
lief Granted
It Is necessary to the validity of a Judgment that
the court should have jurisdiction of the question which
its judgment assumes to decide, and jurisdiction to ren-
der a judgment for the particular remedy or relief which
the judgment undertakes to grant.
In addition to jurisdiction of the parties and the
subject matter, it is necessary to the validity of a
judgment that the court should have jurisdiction of
Public Schools of Jefferson Parish,
3 La,App. 2.
Mass. — Carroll v. Berger, 150 N.B.
870, 255 Mass. 132.
Mich. — Ward v. Hunter Machinery
Co.. 248 N.W. 864, 263 Mich. 445.
Mo. — Crabtree v. .SDtna Life Ins. Co.,
Ill S.W.2d 103, 341 Mo. 1173—
State ex rel. National Lead Co. v.
Smith, App., 134 S.W.2d 1061 —
Noll v. Alexander. App., 282 S.W.
739.
N.J.— Fidelity Union Trust Co, v.
Ackerman, 191 A. 813, 121 N.J.BQ.
497. modified on other grounds
199 A. 379, 123 N.J.Eq.. 556.
N.M. — State ex rel. Slate Tax Com-
mission v. Chavez, 101 P.2d 389,
44 N.M. 260 — In re Field's Estate,
60 P.2d 945, 40 N.M. 423.
N.T. — Anonymous v. Anonymous, 22
N.Y.S.2d 598, 174 Misc. 906— Cor-
pus Juris quoted In Van Buren v.
Harrison. 299 N.Y.S. 485, 486, 164
Misc. 774— Universal Credit Co. v.
Blinderman, 2*8 N.T.S. 79, 158
Misc. 917 — MacAffer v. Boston &
M. R. R., 273 N.Y.S. 679, 242 App.
Div. 140. affirmed 197 N.E. 328, 268
N.Y. 400— Shaul v. Fidelity & De-
posit Co. of Maryland, 227 N.Y.S.
163. 131 Misc. 401, affirmed 230 N.
Y.S. 910, 224 App.Div. 773.
N.C.— Clark v. Caroltea Homes. 128
S.E. 20, 189 N.C. 703.
Ohio.— Ruckert v. Matil Realty Co.,
App.f 40 N.E.2d 688 — Sampliner v.
Bialasky, 25 Ohio N.P.,N.S., 161.
Okl. — Fitzsimmons v. Oklahoma City,
135 P.2d 340, 192 Okl. 248— Okla-
homa City v. Robinson, 65 P.2d
531, 179 Okl. 309— Moroney v. State
ex rel. Southern Surety Co., 31 P.
2d 926, 168 Okl. 69— Henson v.
Oklahoma State Bank, 23 P.2d 709,
165 Okl. 1— State v. Armstrong. 18
P.2d 198, 158 Okl. 290.
8.C.— Betsill v. Betsill, 196 S.E. 381,
187 S.C. 50.
8.D.— Reddin v. Frick, 223 N.W. 50,
54 S.D. 277.
Teun. — Manning v. Feidelson, 186 S.
W.2d 510, 175 Ten*. 676.
Tex. — Campsey v. Brumley, Com,
AppM 55 S.W.2d 810— H, H. Wat-
son Co* v. Cobb Grain Co., Com.
App., 292 S.W. 174— Maury v. Tur-
ner. CbnuApp., 244 S.W. 809 —
49 C.J.S.-4
Kuteman v. Ratlin!, Civ.App., 154
S.W.2d 864 — Commander v. Bryan,
Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d 1008— Olton
State Bank v. Howell, Civ.App., 105
S.W.2d 287— Reed v. State, Cr., 187
S.W.2d 660.
Va. — Robertson v. Commonwealth,
25 S.E.2d 852, 181 Va. 520, 146 A.
L.R. 966 — Drewry v. Doyle, 20 S.E.
2d 548, 179 Va. 715— Barnes v.
American Fertilizer Co., 130 S.E.
902, 144 Va. 692.
Vt. — In re Hanrahan's Will, 194 A.
471, 109 Vt. 108.
Wash.— Colby v. Himes, 17 P.2d 606,
171 Wash. 83.
W.Va. — Corpus Juris cited in Hus-
tead v. Boggess, 12 S.E.2d 514,
515, 122 W.Va. 493.
33 C.J. p 1075 note 61.
Nullity of judgment results from
want of jurisdiction over the sub-
ject matter.
Cal. — Hunter v. Superior Court In
and for Riverside County, 97 P.
2d 492, 36 CaI.App.2d 100.
Tex. — San Jacinto Finance Corpora-
tion v. Perkins, Civ.App., 94 S.W.
2d 1213.
General and special jurisdiction.
The rule that jurisdiction is of
two kinds, jurisdiction of the sub-
ject matter and jurisdiction of the
person and that both must concur
or judgment will be void in any
case in which court has assumed to
act, refers to general jurisdiction
vested in court and applies to spe-
cial jurisdiction only to extent court
exceeds special jurisdiction granted.
—Herb v. Pitcairn, 64 N.E.2d 519,
392 111. 138.
35. U.S. — Woods Bros. Const Co. v.
Yankton County, C.C.A.S.D., 54 F.
2d 304— Corpus Juris cited in U.
S. v. Turner, C.C.A.N.D., 47 F.2d
86, 89.
Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in Board
of Commissioners of Crawford
County v. Radley, 8 P.2d 386, 887,
134 J£an. 704.
33 C.J. P 1076 note 62.
36. Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Board of Commissioners of Craw-
ford County v. Radley, 8 P.2d S86,
387, 134 Kan. 704.
49
Neb. — Omaha Coal, Coke & Lime Co.
v. Suess, 74 N.W. 620, 54 Neb. 879.
37. Tenn. — Reynolds v. Hamilton, 77
S.W.2d 986, 18 Tenn.App. 380.
Tex. — Davis v. Jordan, Civ.App., 151
S.W.2d 291.
33 C.J. p 1076 note 68.
Separation, of single cause of action
Judgments rendered in a court of
limited jurisdiction in separate ac-
tions brought by landlord for sepa-
rate past-due installments of rent,
the total of which installments ex-
ceeded the jurisdiction of the court,
was void for want of Jurisdiction,
Jn view of attempted separation of
single cause of action. — F. W. Wool-
worth & Co. v. Zimmerman; 17$ A.
474, 13 N.J.Misc. 505.
38. Ala.— Ex parte Phillips, 165 So.
SO, 231 Ala. 364— Crabtree v. Mil-
ler, 155 So. 529, 229 Ala. 103.
Ark. — Hendricks v. Henson, 92 S.W.
2d 867, 192 Ark. 544.
La. — Walker v. Fitzgerald, App., 24
So.2d 263.
Mo.— In re Buckles, 53 S.W.2d 1055,
331 Mo. 405.
N.J.— Fidelity Union Trust Co. v.
Ackerman, 191 A. 813, 121 N.J.
Eq. 497, modified on other grounds
199 A. 379, 123 N.J.B<i. 556.
N.Y.— In re Brerman's Estate, 221 N.
Y.S. 462, 129 Misc. 283.
Ohio.— Bobala v. Bobala, 33 N.E.
2d 845, 68 Ohio App. 63.
Va. — Nolde Bros. v. Chalkley, 35 S.
B.2d 827.
W.Va. — Corpus Juris cited in BXi-
stead v. Boggess, 12 S.E.2d 514,
615, 122 W.Va. 493.
33 C.J. p 1077 note 75.
Estoppel
(1) It has been held that when-
ever there is want of authority to
hear and determine subject matter
of controversy, an adjudication on
merits is null, and does not estop
even assenting party. — Cooper v. Da-
vis, 248 N.Y.S. 227, 231 App.Div. 527.
(2) It has been held, however,
that one who invokes the jurisdic-
tion of the court cannot object to a
judgment on the ground that the
court had n« jurisdiction of defend-
ant.— Fostoria v. Fox, 54 NJE. 370,
60 Ohio St. 340.
19
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
the question which its judgment assumes to de-
cide,39 and jurisdiction to render a judgment for
the particular remedy or relief which the judg-
ment undertakes to grant.40 Where the court does
not have such jurisdiction, the judgment is void.41
39. Idaho.— Corpus Juris guoted in
Banbury v. Brailsford, 158 P.2d
8*26, 886— Corpus Juris quoted in
Baldwin v. Anderson, 8 P.2d 461,
462, 51 Idaho 614— -Maloney v.
Zipf, 287 P. 632, 41 Idaho 30.
Kan. — Corpus Juris gaoted in Board
of Commissioners of Crawford
County v. Radley, 8 P.2d 386, 387,
134 Kan. 704.
Mo.—State ex rel. National Lead Co.
v. Smith, App., 134 S.W.2d 1061—
Corpus Juris cited in, Mesendleck
Grain Co. v. Folz, 50 S.W.2d 159,
161, 227 Mo.App. 24.
Ohio. — Sampliner v. Bialasky, 25
Ohio N.P..N.S., 161.
N.M. — State ex rel. State Tax Com-
mission v. Chavez, 101 P.2d 389,
44 N.M. 260— In re Field's Estate,
60 P.2d 945, 40 N.M. 423.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in Hinkle
V. Jones, 66 P.2d 1073, 1076, 180
Okl. 17— Corpus Juris quoted in
Oklahoma City v. Robinson, 65 P.
2d 531, 533, 179 Okl. 309— Corpus
Juris quoted in Whltehead v.
Bunch, 272 P. 878, 879, 134 Okl.
63.
Va.— Hubbard v. Davis, 25 S.B.2d
256, 181 Va. 549— Drewry v. Doyle,
20 S.B.2d 548, 179 Va, 715.
33 C.J. p 1076 note 70.
Determination of Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction to render judgment in
particular action must be determined
and tested by pleadings and relief
sought. — Borfcng v. Dodd, 217 N.W.
580, 116 Neb. 336.
40. U.S.— U. S. v. U. S. Fidelity &
Guaranty Co., D.C.OkL, 24 F.Supp.
961, modified on other grounds 106
F.2d 804, reversed on other
grounds 60 S.Ct. 653. 309 U.S. 506,
84 L.Ed. 894.
Ariz. — Wall v. Superior Court of
Yavapal County, 89 P.2d 624, 53
Ariz. 344— Hill v. Favour, 84 P.
3d 675, 52 Ariz. 561— Varnes v.
White, 12 P.2d 870, 40 Ariz. 427
— Arizona Land & Stock Co. v.
Markus, 296 P. 251, 37 Ariz. 530
— Western Land & Cattle Co. v.
National Bank of Arizona at Phoe-
nix, 239 P. 299, 29 Ariz. 61.
Cai.— Jellen v. O'Brien, 264 P. 1115,
89 CaLApp. 505.
Colo. — Williams v. Hankins, 225 P.
243, 75 Colo. 136 — People v. Burke.
212 P. 837, 72 Colo. 486, 30 A.L.R.
1085.
Fla, — United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America v.
Graves Inv. Co., 15 So.2d 196, 153
Fla. 529 — Arcadia Citrus Growers
Ass'n y. Hollingsworth, 185 So.
431, 135 Fla. 322— Skipper v.
Schumacher, 169 So. 58, 124 Fla.
384, appeal dismissed and certio-
rari denied 57 S.Ct 39, 299 U.S.
507, 81 L.Ed. 376— Chllds v. Boots,
152 So. 212, 112 Fla, 277— Coslick
v. Finney, 140 So. 216, 104 Fla,
394.
Idaho. — Corpus Juris quoted in Ban-
bury v. Brailsford, 158 P.2d 826,
836 — Corpus Juris quoted in Bald-
win v. Anderson, 8 P.2d 461, 462,
51 Idaho 614— Maloney v. Zipf, 237
P. 632, 41 Idaho 30.
111.— Hummel v.'Cardwell, 62 N.B.2d
433, 390 111. 5-26, certiorari denied
66 S.Ct. 819, three oases — Toman
v. Park Castles Apartment Bldg.
Corporation, 31 N.E.2d 299, 375 111.
293 — Mclnness v. Oscar F. Wilson
Printing Co., 258 Ill.App. 161.
Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in Board
of Commissioners of Crawford
County v. Radley, 8 P.2d 386, 387,
134 Kan. 704.
Ky. — Lowther v. Moss, 39 S.W.2d
501, 239 Ky. 290.
Mass. — New England Home for Deaf
Mutes v. Leader Filling Stations
Corporation, 177 N.E. 97, 276 Mass.
153.
Okl. — Fitzslmmons v. Oklahoma
City, 135 P.2d 340, 192 Okl. 248—
Corpus Juris quoted in Hfeikle v.
Jones, 66 P.2d 1073, 1076, 180
Okl. 17 — Corpus Juris quoted in
Oklahoma City v. Robinson, 65 P.
2d 531, 533, 179 Okl. 309— Henson
v. Oklahoma State Bank, 23 P.2d
709, 165 Okl. 1 — Corpus Juris quot-
ed in Whitehead v. Bunch, 272 P.
878, 879, 134 Okl. 63.
Tex. — Nymon v. Eggert, Civ.App.,
154 S.W.2d 157.
Utah. — Hampshire v. Woolley, 269
P. 135, 72 Utah 106.
Va. — Drewry v. Doyle, 20 S.B.2d 548,
179 Va. 715— Hubbard v. Davis, 25
S.E.2d 256, 181 Va. 549— Corpus
Juris cited in .astna Casualty &
Surety Co. of Hartford, Conn. v.
Board of Supervisors of Warren
Co., 168 S.E. 617, 626, 160 Va.
11.
33 C.J. p 1076 note 71.
Court of general Jurisdiction
Even a court of general jurisdic-
tion has no power to render any
judgment affecting persons or prop-
erty, unless the particular judgment
is brought within court's jurisdic-
tion according to law. — Herb v. Pit-
cairn, 51 N.B.2d 277, 384 111. 237,
reversed on other grounds 65 S.Ct
954, 326 U.S. 77, 89 L.Ed. 1483, re-
hearing denied 66 S.Ct. 1188, 325 U.
S. 893, 89 L.Ed. 2005. Opinion sup-
plemented 64 N.E.2d 318, 392 111.
151.
Jurisdiction or power to render a
particular judgment does not mean
that the judgment rendered must be j
the one that should have been ren- I
dered, since the power or jurisdic- J
50
tion to decide carries with it the
power or jurisdiction to decide
wrong as well as to decide right. —
U. S. v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty
Co., D.C.Okl., 24 F.Supp. 961, modi-
fied on other grounds, C.C.A., 106 F.
2d 804, reversed on other grounds 60
S.Ct 653, 309 U.S. 506, 84 L.Ed. 894.
41. Cal. — Hunter v. Superior Court
in and for Riverside County, 97
P.2d 492. 36 Cal.App.2d 100.
Ky. — Lortoh v. Ashbrook, 295 S.W.
1027, 220 Ky. 830.
Mo.—State ex rel. National Lead Co.
v. Smith, App., 134 S.W.2d 1061 —
Mesendieck Grain Co. v. Folz, 50
S.W.2d 159, 161, 227 Mo.App. 24.
N.T. — Lynbrook Gardens v. Ullmann,
36 N.T.S.2d 888, 179 Misc. 132, af-
firmed 37 N.T.S.2d 671, 265 App.
Div. 859, reversed on other
. grounds 53 N.E.2d 353, 291 N.Y.
472, 152 A.L.R. 959, certiorari de-
nied 64 S.Ct. 1144, 322 U.S. 742,
88 L.Ed. 1575.
Okl.— Sabin v. Levorsen, 145 P.2d
402, 193 Okl. 320, certiorari denied
64 S.Ct. 205, 320 U.S. 792, 88 L.Bd.
477, rehearing denied 64 S.Ct. 368,
320 U.S. 815, 88 LJEd. 4*2— Fitz-
simmons v. Oklahoma City, 135 P.
2d 340, 343, 192 Okl. 248— Moroney
v. State ex rel. Southern Surety
Co., 31 P.2d 926, 168 Okl. 69— State
v. Armstrong, 13 P.2d 198, 168
Okl. 290— Blake v. Metz, 276 P.
762, 136 Okl. 146, followed in 276
P. 765, 136 Okl. 150— Askew v. Ter-
rell, 243 P, 495, 113 Okl. 206— Vann
v. Adklns, 234 P. 644, 169 Okl. 12
— Burris v. Straughn, 232 P. 294,
107 Okl. 299— Ex parte Dawes, 239
P. 689, 31 Okl.Cr. 397.
Tex. — San Jacinto Finance Corpora-
tion v. Perkins, Civ.App., 94 S.W.
2d 1213— Reed v. State, Cr., 187 S.
W.2d 660.
Wyo. — State v. District Court of
Eighth Judicial Dist. in and for
Natrona County, 238 P. 545, 33
Wyo. 281.
33 C.J. p 1077 note 72.
A decision, whether correct or
wrong, made by a court in excess of
its jurisdiction and power is void.
—Spencer v. Franks, 195 A. 306, 173
Md. 73, 114 A.L.R. 263.
Manner forbidden by law
A judgment is void when the court
proceeds without authority and in
a manner forbidden by law with re-
spect to matter being adjudicated,
although it may have jurisdiction of
parties and subject matter.— Wagner
v. Peoples Building & Loan Ass'n,
167 S.W.2d 825, 292 Ky. 691— Jones
v. Keen, 160 S.W.2d 164, 289 Ky. 779
— Soper v. Foster, 51 S.W.2d 927. 244
Ky. 658.
49 C.J.S.
§ 20. Matured Cause of Action
It Is essential to the validity and regularity of a
judgment that the demand whereon it is rendered shall
have existed as a matured cause of action at the time
the action was commenced.
It is essential to the validity and regularity of a
judgment that the demand whereon it is rendered
shall have existed as a matured cause of action at
the time the action was commenced,42 it being a
general rule that a party must recover according to
his legal rights at the commencement of the ac-
JUDGMENTS
§ 22
§ 21. Definitiveness
A judgment must be definitive*
A judgment must be definitive.44 By this is
meant that the decision itself must purport to de-
cide finally the rights of the parties on the issue
submitted, by specifically denying or granting the
remedy sought by the action.45 The converse of
this proposition is also true, and every definitive de-
termination of the rights of the parties in a pro-
ceeding before a competent tribunal is a judg-
ment46
§ 22. Reasons for Judgment
OrdlnarHy the reasons assigned by the court for
the Judgment rendered do not constitute a part of the
judgment.
Although it has been said that every court should
state on the record the legal grounds for its judg-
ment,47 the reasons assigned by the court for the
judgment rendered do not constitute a part of the
judgment.48 Also if the judgment given is correct,
it is immaterial whether the reasons adduced for
giving such a judgment are correct.49 Therefore a
judgment or decree of the court controls the writ-
ten opinion, and if they are at variance, the former
prevails and determines the rights of the parties.60
Not a Judgment
When judgment roll on its face
shows that court was without juris-
diction to render the particular judg-
ment, Its pronouncement Is not In
fact a judgment. — Hodson v.
O'Keeffe, 229 P. 722, 71 Mont. 322.
Belief denied "by law
A Judgment granting relief which
the law declares shall not be grant-
ed is void. — Moroney v. State ex rel.
Southern Surety Co., 31 P.2d 926, 168
Okl. 69— State v. Armstrong, 13 P.
2d 198, 158 Okl. 290.
Special statutory powers
Where court is exercising special
statutory powers, Judgment in ex-
cess of statutory authority Is void.
— uEtna Casualty & Surety Co. of
Hartford, Conn., v. Board of Sup'rs
of Warren County, 168 S.E, 617, 160
•Va. 11.
Transcending Jurisdiction,
Where court, after acquiring Ju-
risdiction of a subject matter, tran-
scends the limits of Jurisdiction con-
ferred, its Judgment Is void. — Flake
v. Pretzel, 46 N.B.2d 375, 381 HI.
498.
42. Wash, — Mondiolf v. American
Bldg. Co., 145 P. 577, 83 Wash. 584.
33 C.J. p 1097 note 9.
43. N.Y.— -Fults v. Munro, 95 N.E.
23, 202 N.Y. 34, 87 KILA..N.S., 600,
Ann.Cas.l912D 870.
33 C.J. p 1097 note 10.
Death rendering- decree timely
However, where testatrix devised
realty in trust for benefit of hus-
band during his life, the trust to
terminate at husband's death, and
husband who elected to take against
the will died during pendency of de-
fendants' appeal in husband's parti-
tion suit, realty was to be distribut-
ed by trustee as directed by will
and decree, and order directing sale
of property and that trustee dis-
tribute proceeds, if premature when
entered, was held to be rendered
timely by husband's death. — Flynn
v. Bryan, Mo., 154 S.W.2d 773.
44. Cal.— Kosloff v. Kosloff, 154 P.
2d 431, 67 Cal.App.2d 374— Corpus
Juris quoted in Makzoume v. Mak-
zoume, 123 P.2d 72, 74, 50 CaLApp.
2d 229.
33 C.J. p 1103 note 29.
45. CaL— Kosloff v. Kosloff, 154 P.
2d 431, 67 Cal.App.2d 374— Corpus
Juris quoted in Makzoume v. Mak-
zoume, 123 P.2d 72, 74, 50 CaLApp.
2d 229.
N.Y.— Lowe v. Lowe, 192 N.E. 291,
265 N.Y. 197.
33 C.J. p 1104 note 30.
Judgment determining nothing
and leaving parties where they
started is wholly ineffective. — Per-
mian Oil Co. v. Smith, Civ.App., 47
S.W.2d 500, reversed on other
grounds 73 S.W.2d 490, 129 Tex. 413,
111 AL.R. 1152, rehearing denied
107 S.W.2d 564, 129 Tex. 413, 111 A.
L.R. 1175.
46. Cal.— Kosloff v. Kosloff, 154 P.
2d 431, 67 Cal.App.2d 374— Corpus
Juris quoted in Makzoume v. Mak-
zoume, 123 P.2d 72. 74, 50 Cal.
App.2d 229.
33 C.J. p 1104 note 31.
47. N.Y.— Newman v. Mayer, 65 N.
T.S. 294, 52 App.Div. 209, 7 N.Y.
Ann.Cas. 497.
Va.-— Preston v. Auditor, 1 Call. 471,
5 Va. 471.
Construction of Judgments In gen-
eral see infra § 436.
Constitutional requirement
(1) Where a constitutional provi-
sion requires the court to state its
reasons for the Judgment rendered,
51
and this is not done, the Judgment
must be reversed. — Dorr v. Jouet, 20
La.Ann. 27—33 C.J. p 1105 note 48.
(2) The constitutional mandate
that Judges shall refer to law and
adduce reasons on which definitive
Judgments are founded refers only
to cases wherein real controversies
or claims are decided or adjudicated
and not to rule taken by wife for
issuance of writ of fieri facias on
Judgment for amount of past-due
and exigible alimony payments pre-
viously ordered by Judgment in her
suit for separation from bed and
board. — Erdal v. Brdal, La.App., 26
So.2d 377.
48. Cal. — Corpus Juris cited in
Martin v. Board of Trustees of
ILeland Stanford Jr. University, 99
P.2d 684, 686, 37 Cal.App.2d 481.
Ga.— Bales v. Wright, 200 S.E. 192,
59 Ga.App. 191.
Mo. — Smith v. Travelers' Protective
Ass'n of America, 6 S.W.2d 870,
•319 Mo. 1120.
N.C. — Gettys v. Town of Marion, 10
S.B.2d 799, 218 N.C. 266.
Okl.— McGann v. McGann, 87 P.2d
939, 169 Okl. 515.
Tex. — Davis v. Hemphlll, ClvJLpp.,
243 S.W. 691.
33 C.J. p 1104 note 38.
49. Minn. — Kipp v. Clinger, 106 N*
W. 108, 97 Minn. 135.
33 C.J. p 1105 note 40.
50. Iowa. — In re Evans' Estate, 291
N.W. 460, 228 Iowa 908.
N.Y. — People ex rel. Metropolitan
Trust Co. of City of New York v.
Travis, 176 N.Y.S. 765, 107 Misc.
377, affirmed 180 N.Y.S. 659, 191
App.Dlv. 129,
Wash.— Reagh v. Shalkenbach, 56 P.
2d 673.
33 C.J. p 1104 note 39.
1 23
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
If the judgment is one which the court had power i jurisdiction because it is based or made on an im-
to make on any ground, it is not void for want of | proper ground.51
B. PROCESS, NOTICE, OE APPEARANCE
§ 23. Necessity
A valid judgment may be rendered against a defend-
ant only where he has been given notice; and accord*
tngly a judgment which is rendered without any notice
to, or service of process on the defendant, and without
his voluntarily appearing, is generally void for want of
Jurisdiction.
As a general rule, before a valid judgment may be
rendered against a defendant, he must be accorded
an opportunity to be heard, as discussed supra §
18, and for this purpose he must be given notice
of the action or proceeding against him,52 and this
notice cannot constitutionally be dispensed with.53
Accordingly a judgment which is rendered without
any form of notice to, or service on, defendant is
wholly void for want of jurisdiction,54 unless he
voluntarily appears, as discussed infra § 26, or
Operation and effect of opinions gen-
erally see Courts § 222 b.
''Decision"
In case of a variance between the
"'Judgment" and the "decision," the
"'judgment" controls.— Wo Kee & Co.
v. U. S., 28 C.C.P.A.Customs 272—
U. S. v. Penn. Commercial Corpora-
tion of America, 15 Ct.Cust.App. 206
— Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical
Co. v. U. S., 13 CtCustApp. 451.
51. U.S. — Converse v. Stewart, C.C.
3ST.T., 192 F. 941. affirmed 197 F.
1S2, 118 C.C.A. 212.
52. U.S. — Sylvan Beach v. Koch, C.
C.A.MO., 140 F.2d 852— Smith v.
Stark Trucking, D.C.Ohio, 63 F.
Supp. 826 — Fisher v. Jordan, D.C.
Tex., 32 F.Supp. 608, reversed on
other grounds 116 F.2d 183, cer-
tiorari denied Jordan v. Fisher, 61
S.Ct. 734, 812 U.S. 697, 85 L.Ed.
1132.
Cal.— Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246, 203
Cal. 306.
Ga.— Elliott v. Adams, 160 S.E. 336,
173 Ga. 312.
N.Y. — Rochester Sav. Bank v. Mon-
roe County, S N.Y.S.2d 107, 169
Misc. 526— Cipperly v. Link, 237
N.Y.S. 106, 135 Misc. 134.
N.D. — Corpus Juris quoted In Baird
v. Ellison, 293 N.W. 794, 801, 70
* N.D. 261.
Okl. — St. Louis-San Francisco By.
Co. v. Bayne, 40 P.2d 1104, 170 Okl
542.
Pa.— In re Galli's Estate, 17 A.2d
893, 340 Pa. 561 — In re Komara's
Estate, 166 A. 677, 311 Pa. 135.
Va.— Moore v. Smith, 15 S.E.2d 48,'
177 Va. 621.
Wash.— Morley v. Morley, 230 P. 645,
131 Wash. 540.
33 C.J. p 1080 BOte 96.
53. Gal.— Baker v. O'Riordan, 4 P.
232, 65 Cal. 368.
Minn. — Bardwell v. Collins, 46 N.W.
315, 44 Minn. 97, 20 Am.S.R. 547,
9 L.R.A. 152.
33 C.J. p 1079 note 93.
Process or notice as essential ele-
ment of due process of law see
Constitutional Law 5 619.
Begardless of statutory provision
with respect to issuance and service
of process, no judgment, order, or
.decree is valid or binding on the
party who has no notice of pro-
ceeding against him, since court
must have jurisdiction of tlie person
as well as of the subject matter and
legislature is without power under
constitution to dispense with notice
either actual or constructive. — Mad-
do* v. Bush, 4 So.2d 302, 191 Miss.
748— Jack v. Thompson, 41 Miss. 49'.
54. U.S. — Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Cor-
poration v. Warfield Natural Gas
Co., C.C.A.Ky., 137 F.2d 871, car-,
tiorari denied 64 S.Ct. 431, 320 U.
S. 800, 88 L.Ed. 483, rehearing de-
nied 64 S.Ct. 634, 321 U.S. 803, 88
L.EdL 1089 — Mason v. Royal In-
demnity Co., D.CGa., 35 F.Supp.
477, affirmed, C.C.A., 123 F.2d 335.
Ala. — Standard Cooperage Co. v.
Grant, 117 So. 31, 217 Ala. 667—
Farmers' Union Warehouse Co. v.
Burnett Bros., 116 So. 810, 22 Ala.
App. 524, certlorari denied 118
So. 286, 218 Ala. 165.
Ariz. — Lore v. Citizens Bank of Win-
slow, 75 R2d 371, 51 Ariz. 191.
Cal. — Balaam v. Perazzo, 295 P. 330,
221 Cal. 375— Gray v. Hall, 265 P.
246, 203 Cal. 306— In re Ivory's
Estate, 98 P.2d 761, 37 Oal.App.2d
22— Jones v. Noble, 39 P.2d 486, 8
Cal.App.2d 316.
D.C.— Wise v. Herzog. 114 F.2d 486,
72 APP.D.C. 335.
Gtau — TOnn v. Armour & Co., 193 S.
R 447, 184 Ga. 769— Henry & Co.
v. Johnson, 173 S.E. 659, 178 Ga.
641— Williams v. Batten, 119 S.E.
709, 156 Ga. 620— Cherry v. Mo-
Cutchen, 23 S.E.2d 587, 68 Ga.
App. 682.
Hawaii. — Kim Poo Kum v. Sugi-
yama, 33 Hawaii 545.
111. — Schuster v. Eisner, 250 IlLApp.
192.
Ind. — Montgomery v. Marks, 46 N.E.
2d 912, 221 Ind. 223—Celiha Mut
Casualty Co. v. Bpldridge, 12 N.E.
2d 258, 213 Ind. 198.
Iowa.— Woodmen Accident Co. v.
District Court in and for Marshall
County, 260 N.TIf. 713, 219 Iowa
1326, 9£ A.L.R. 1431— Bes Mofaes
Coal & Coke Co. v. Marks Inv. Co.,
195 N.W. 597, 197 Iowa 589, opin- ,
52
ion modified on rehearing 197 N.
W. 628, 187 Iowa 589.
Ky.— Gayle v. Gayle, 192 S.W.2d 821
— Parrish v. Ferriell, 186 S.W.2d
625, 299 Ky. 676— Jones v. Fuller,
134 S.W.Sd 240, 280 Ky. 671—
Gardner v. Lincoln Bank & Trust
Co., 64 S.W.2d 497, 251 Ky. 109
—Ely v. U. S. Coal & Coke Co., 49
S.W.2d 1021, 243 Ky. 725— Rex
Red Ash Coal Co. v. Powers, 290
S.W. 1061, 218 Ky. 93— Farmers'
Bank of Salvisa v. Riley, 272 S.W.
9, 209 Ky. 54.
La.— In re Webster's Tutorship, 177
So. 688, 188 La. 623— Lacour Plan-
tation Co, v. Jewell, 173 So. 761,
186 La. 1055— Logwood v. Log-
wood, 168 So. 310, 185 La. 1— No-
. Ian v. Schultze, 126 So. 513, 169
La. 1022— Gahn v. Brown, 107 So.
576, 160 La. 790— Nicol v. Jacoby,
103 So. 33, 157 La. 757— Smith v.
Crescent Chevrolet Co., App., 1 So.
2d 421 — Key v. Jones, App., 181 So.
631— R. P. Ffcrnsworth & Co. v.
Estrade, Cotton & Fricke, App.,
166 So. 676— McClelland v. District
Household of Ruth, App., 151 So.
246 — Richardson v. Trustees' Loan
& Guaranty Co., 132 So. 387, 15 La.
App. 645 — Spillman v. Texas &*P.
Ry. Co., 120 So. 905, 10 LfcuApp.
379.
Md. — Piedmont-Mt Airy Guano Co.
of Baltimore y. Merritt, 140 A. 62,
154 Md. 226.
Mich.— Hafner T. A. J. Stuart Land
Co., 224 N.W. 630, 246 Mich. 465.
Minn. — Beede v. Nldes Finance Cor-
poration, 296 N.W. 413, 209 Minn.
354.'
Miss. — Eastman Gardiner Lumber
Co. v. Carr, 166 So. 401, 175 Miss.
36 — Bank of Richton v. Jones, 121
So. 823, 153 Miss. 796.
Mo. — State eat rel. Keller r. Porter-
field, App., 283 S.W. 59.
Mont— Novack v. Pericich, 300 P.
240, 90 Mont 91-r-Holt v. Sather,
264 P. 108, 81 Mont 442.
K.M. — Bourgeious v. Santa Fe Trail
Stages, 95 P.2d 284, 43 N.M. 453.
N.Y.— Friedman v. Blatt, 27 N.Y.S.2d
102, 176*Misc. 401— Rochester Sav.
Bank v. Monroe County, 8 N.T.S.
2d 107, 169 Misc. 526— Baumaa
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 23
otherwise waives service of process,55 or authorizes
its acceptance;56 and in some states this rule ob-
tains by statutory provision.57 However, the prin-
ciple that a judgment obtained without service of
process or voluntary appearance is void for lack of
the court's jurisdiction does not apply to a deci-
sion on a collateral question, in a case where the
parties are before the court ;58 and a failure to give
notice" to a party who has no concern or interest in
the question decided does not affect the validity of
the judgment.59 A judgment which merely deter-
mines rights may be conclusive without the service
of any process for its enforcement.60
After amended, supplefnental, or cross pleading.
A judgment is void where it is rendered without the
service of process, waiver, or entry of appearance,
on an amended complaint or petition, which changes
the cause of action,61 or on an amended or supple-
mental pleading filed by defendant,62 or on a plea
of intervention.63 Likewise, where a new or ad-
ditional process is required when a cross pleading
is filed, a judgment rendered on such pleading
Rubber Co. v. Karl Light & Sons, •
244 N.T.S. 448, 137 Misc. 258.
N.C.— Powell v. Turpin, 29 S.E.2d
26, 224 N.C. 67— City of Monroe
v. Niven, 20 S.E.2d 311, 221 N.C.
362— Hood v. Holding, 171 S.E.
633. 205 N.C. 451— Crocker v.
Van-n, 135 S.E. 127, 192 N.C. 422
— Clark v. Carolina Homes, 128 S.
E. 20, 189 N.C. 703.
N.D. — Corpus Juris quoted in. Baird
v. Ellison, 293 N.W. 794, 801, 70
N.D. 261— Gallagher v. National
Nonpartisan League, 205 N.W. 674,
53 N.D. 238.
Okl. — American Exchange Corpora-
tion v. Lowry, 63 P.2d 71, 178 Okl.
433 — St. Louis-San Francisco Ry.
Co. v. Bayne, 40 P.2d 1104, 170 Okl.
542— Chicago, R. L & P. Ry. Co.
v. Excise Board of Oklahoma
County, 33 P.2d 1081, 168 Okl. 428
— Protest of Chicago. R. I. & P.
Ry. Co., 2 P.2d 935, 151 Okl. 129
— Noel v. Edwards, 260 P. 58, 127
Okl. 163— Oklahoma City v. Me-
Williams, 236 P. 417, 108 Okl. 268
— Abraham v. Homer, 226 P. 45,
102 Okl. 12.
Pa. — In re Honiara's Estate, 166 A.
577, 311 Pa, 135— In re Gallagher's
Estate, 167 A. 476, 109 Pa. Super.
304.
R.I. — Corpus Juris cited in Sahagian
v. Sahagian, 137 A. 221, 222, 48
R.L 267.
Tex. — Pure Oil Co. v. Reece, 78 S.
W.2d 932, 124 Tex. 476— State
Mortg. Corporation v. Tray lor, 36
S.W.2d 440. 120 Tex 148— Levy v.
Roper, 256 S.W. 251, 113 Tex. 356
— Burrage v. Hunt, Civ.App., 147
S.W.2d 532, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct — Freeman v. B. F.
Goodrich Rubber Co., Civ.App., 127
S.W.2d 476, error dismissed by
agreement— Olton State Bank v.
Howell, Civ.App., 105 S.W.2d 287
— Goodman v. Mayer, Civ.App.,
105 S.W.2d 281, reversed on other
grounds 128 S.W.2d 1156, 133 Tex.
319 — Coker v. Logan, Civ.App., 101
S.W.2d 284 — Corpus Juris cited in
Associated Indemnity Corporation
v. Baker, Civ.App., 76 S.W.2d 153,
158 — Wilkinson v. Owens, Civ.
App.,' 72 S.W.2d 330— Christie v.
Hudspeth County Conservation
and Reclamation Dist. No. 1, Civ.
App., 64 S.W.2d 978— Texas Bank
& Trust Co. v. Bankers' Life Co.,
Civ.App., 43 S.W.2d 631, error re-
fused— Lipscomb v. Japhet, Civ.
App., 18 S.W.2d 786— Belt v. Mc-
Gehee, Civ.App., 9 S.W.Sd 407—
Adamson v. Collins, Civ.App., 286
S.W. 598— Cook v. Liberty Pipe
Line Co., Civ.App., 281 S.W. 221
— Watson Co., Builders, v. Blee-
ker, Civ.App., 269 S.W. 147.
Utah. — Parry v. Bonneville Irr.
Dist., 235 P. 751, 71 Utah 202.
Va. — Preston v. Legard, 168 S.E. 445,
160 Va. 364 — Johnson v. Burson,
129 S.E. 251, 143 Va. 57.
Wash. — State v. Fishing Appliances,
16 P.2d 822, 170 Wash. 426.
W.Va. — Hayhurst v. J. Kenny Trans-
fer Co., 158 S.E. 506, 110 W.Va.
395 — Robertson Grocery Co. v.
Kinser, 116 S.E. 141, 93 W.Va. 172.
33 C.J. p 1079 note 94—34 C.J. p 533
notes 38, 39—15 C.J. p 798 note 64.
Default Judgment without process
see infra § 191.
Judgment by confession without
process see infra § 151.
Service of process as essential to
Jurisdiction see Courts § 83.
Service of process on Joint defend-
ants see infra $ 33.
As otherwise stated, unless a de-
fendant has been brought into court
in some way sanctioned by law, or
has made a voluntary appearance
in person or by attorney, a Judgment
rendered against him is void for
want of Jurisdiction. — Casey v. Bar-
ker, 14 S.E.2* 429, 219 N.C. 465—
Groce v. Groce, 199 S.E. 388, 214
N.C. 398 — Denton v. Vassiliades, 193
S.E. 737, 212 N.C. 513— Downing v.
White, 188 S.E. 815, 211 N.C. 40.
For judicial action to affect vested
rights, it must be based on notice or
process whereby interested parties
are brought within court's Jurisdic-
tion.— Parry v. Bonneville Irr. Dist.,
263 P. 751, 71 Utah 202.
55. Ga.— Henry & Co. v. Johnson,
173 S.E. 659, 178 Ga. 541.
Hawaii.— Kim Poo Kum v. Sugi-
yama, 33 Hawaii 545.
La. — Key v. Jones, App., 181 So. 631.
Okl.— Protest of Chicago, R. I. &
P. Ry. Co., 2 P.2d 935, 151 Okl.
129.
53,
W.Va, — Hayhurst v. J. Kenny Trans-
fer Co., 158 S.E. 606, 110 W.Va.
395 — Robertson Grocery Co. v.
Kinser, 116 S.E. 141, 93 W.Va. 172.
34 C.J. p 5*33 note 40.
56. W.Va. — Hayhurst v. J. Kenny
Transfer Co., 158 S.E. 506, 110 W.
Va. 395.
57. Ark. — Arkansas State Highway
Commission v. Hammock, 148 S.
W.2d 324, 201 Ark. 927.
58- Cal.— Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246,
20$ Cal. 306.
59. Ohio. — Cunningham v. Bessemer
Trust Co., 178 N.E. 217, 39 Ohio
App. 535.
60. N.H.— Faulkner v. City of
Keene, 155 A. 195. 85 N.H. 147—
Walker v. Walker, 63 N.H. 321,
56 Am.R. 514.
Declaratory Judgments generally see
Actions § 18 d (14) (g).
61. Ohio. — Ohio Electric Ry. Co. v.
U. S. Express Co., 137 N.E. 1, 105
Ohio St. 331.
Tex. — Nuckles v. J. M. Radford Gro-
cery Co., Civ.App... 72 S.W.2d 652.
Rule not applicable where amend-
ed pleading states no new cause of
action.
Okl.— City of Tulsa v. Peacock, 74 P.
2d 359, 181 Okl. 383.
Tex. — Nathan v. Brashear, Civ.App.,
105 S.W.2d 328— Henson v. C. C.
Slaughter Co., Civ.App., 206 S.W.
375.
33 C.J. p 1081 note 97 [d].
62. Tex— Davis v. Wichita State
Bank & Trust Co., Civ.App., 286
S.W. 584.
Flea for affirmative relief
Where defendant files pleading
asking for affirmative relief after
plaintiff has taken nonsuit, citation
is necessary to sustain Judgment
for him.— Davis v. Wichita State
Bank & Trust Co., Tex.Civ.App., 286
S.W. 584.
judgment improper
Entry of Judgment after overrul-
ing plea of privilege, without notice
or hearing of controverting plea, Is
improper. — Galbraith v. Bishop, Tex
Com.App., 287 S.W. 1087.
63. Tex.— State v. Bagby's Estate,
_Civ.App., ,126 S.W.2d 687.
§ 24
against the original plaintiff,64 or a codefendant,65
without the service of process on, or appearance or
waiver by, such plaintiff or defendant, is void, as
where the cross petition is filed after the expiration
of the time for such defendant to plead.66
§ 24. Sufficiency
a. In general
b. Personal service
c. Substituted and constructive service;
publication
d. Extraterritorial service
e. Nonresidents
f . Attachment and garnishment
g. Defective process
h. Defective service
a. In General
Formal process or notice served In the manner au-
thorized or required by law is essential to support a
judgment.
Formal process or notice served in the manner
authorized or required by law is essential to sup-
port a judgment;67 mere informal knowledge of
the pendency of the action is not sufficient68 Thus
a judgment is a mere nullity where service is made
on a third person, who is not authorized to accept
service, instead of on the actual defendant,69 not-
Wbere intervention was filed after
service of citation had been had on
defendants and intervener did not
cause citation to issue on Its cause
of action and defendants made no
appearance, trial court was without
Jurisdiction to enter judgment for
intervener against defendants.—
State v. Bagby's Estate, Tex. Civ.
App., 126 S.W.2d 687.
64. Tex. — Early v. Cornelius, 39 S.
W.2d 6, 120 Tex, 335— Holmes v.
Klein, Civ.App.f 59 S.W.2d 171—
National Stock Tards Nat Bank
v. Valentine, Civ. App., 39 S.W.2d
907 — Southern Equipment Co. v.
Hallman Electric Co., Civ. App., 10
S.W.2d 261 — Scarborough v. Brad-
ley, Civ.App., 256 S.W. 349— Jar-
ratt v. McCarty, Civ.App,, 209 S.
W. 712.
Necessity of process after filing
cross pleading see the C.J.S. title
Process § 4, also 50 C.J. p 448
note 48-p 449 note 60.
65. CaL— Balaam v. Perazzo, 295 P,
330, 221 CaL 375.
Ky. — Carter v. Capshaw, 60 S.W.2d
959, 249 Ky. 483— Lorton v. Ash-
brook, 295 S.W. 1027, 220 Ky. 830.
Tex. — Holmes v. Klein, Civ. App., 59
S.W.2d 171, error dismissed — Flagg
v. Matthews, Civ.App., 287 S.W.
299.
Effect of appearance generally see
infra § 26.
66. Okl.— Blakeney v. Ashford, 81
P.2d 309, 188 Okl. 213— Vinson v.
Oklahoma City, 66 P.2d 933, 179
Okl. 590-^Central Nat. Bank of
Okmulgee v. Sharp, 34 P.2d 241,
168 Okl. 616 — O'Reilly v. Schuer-
meyer, 9 P,2d 923, 156 Okl. 167—
Wood v. Speakman, 5 P.2d. 121, 153
Okl. 180 — Poster v. Comaway, 251
P. 59, 122 Okl. 80.
67. U.S. — Rettig Beverage Co. v, IT.
S.. C.C.A.Pa., 13 F.2d 740.
Ala. — Sovereign .Camp, W. O. W., v.
Partridge, 127 So. 505, 221 Ala.
75.
Ark. — Gainsburg v. Dodge, 101 S.W.
2d 178, 193 Ark. 473. ,
Colo. — Younge v. Button, 61 P.2d
1370, 99 Colo. 254.
Fla.— McAllister v. McAllister, 3 So.
2d 351. 147 Fla, 647.
Ky. — Corpus Taxis cited in Ely v.
XI. S. Coal & Coke Co., 49 S.W.2d
1021, 1025, 243 Ky. 725.
Mo. — In re Waters' Estate, App.,
153 S.W.2d 774.
Neb.— Coffin v. Maitland, 20 N.W.2d
310.
N.J.— Hinners v. Banville, 168 A.
618, 114 N.J.Eq. 348.
N.T.— Universal Credit Co. v. Blind-
erman, 288 N.T.S. 77, 159 Misc.
802.
N.D. — Corpus Juris quoted in Balrd
v. Ellison, 293 N.W, 794, 801, 70
N.D. 261.
Okl.— State v. City of Tulsa, 5 P.2d
744, 153 Okl. 262— Oklahoma City
v. McWilliams, 236 P. 417, 108 Okl.
268.
Pa. — In re Murray's Estate, Super.,
45 A.2d 411 — Johnston v. Ameri-
can Casualty Co., Com.Pl., 23
WestCo. 178.
Tenn. — Hunter v. May, 25 S.W.2d
580, 161 Tenn. 155.
Tex. — Jenness v. First Nat. Bank,
Civ.App., 256 S.W. 634.
33 C.J. p 1081 note 97.
Service of process in general see
the C.J.S. title Process § 25 et sea,
also 50 C.J. p 467 note 86 et sea.
Formal issuance of order to show
cause and appropriate service there-
of on defendant was such reasona-
ble notice of pendency of suit as to
bring it within Jurisdiction of court
and bind defendant to order or de-
cree.— Doan v. OollinB-Doan Co., 194
A. 254, 122 N.J.Eq. 399.
'Corporation, and stockholders
Where court had jurisdiction over
subject matter of suit against cor-
poration, and president of corpo-
ration was served with citation,
stockholders were not "necessary
parties" or "proper parties" to suit,
and hence notice of suit and serv-
ice on them was not reauired for
rendition of valid judgment against
corporation and stockholders. — Cruse
54
v. Mann, Tex.Civ.App., 74 S.W.2d
545, error dismissed.
68. Cal.— Peabody v. Phelps, 9 CaL
213.
N.D. — Corpus Jxtcis quoted la Baird
v. Ellison, 293 N.W. 794, 801, 70
N.D. 261.
Ohio.— Haley v. Hanna, 112 N.E, 149,
93 Ohio St. 49.
33 C.J. p 1081 note 97.
69. Ky. — Missouri-Kansas Pipe
Line Co. v. Hobgood, 51 S.W.2d
920, 244 Ky, 570.
La.— Waddill v. Payne, 23 La,Ann.
773— Jones v. Jones, 23 La.Ann.
304.
N.T. — Building Trades Service Bu-
reau v. S. W. Straus Investing
Corporation, 272 N.T.S. 73, 241
App.Div. 869— Universal Credit
Co. v. Blinderman, 288 N.T.S. 77,
159 Misc. 802.
Wash. — Wheeler v. Moore, 36 P.
1053, 10 Wash. 309.
W.Va,— State v. A, R. Kelly & Co.*
33 S.E.2d 230— Nicholas Land Co.
v. Crowder, 32 S.E.2d 563.
33 C.J. p 1081 note 98.
Class representative
(1) Conditions under which de-
fendants may be bound by judg-
ments in "class suits," and in other
cases in which doctrine of virtual
representation is applied, constitute
exceptions to statutory provisions
making service of process a condi-
tion precedent to rendition of judg-
ment.— Southern Ornamental Iron.
Works v. Morrow, Tcx.Civ.App., 101
S.W.2d 336.
(2) However, the equitable doc-
trine of class representation does
not permit a plaintiff to designate-
certain parties as representatives
of other numerous members of &
voluntary unincorporated association
in order to obtain personal judg-
ments as to members not properly-
served in action on alleged indebted-
ness of the association. — Webb &
Martin v. Anderson-McG-rift Hard-
ware Co., 3 S.E.2d 882, 188 Ga, 291.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 24
withstanding defendant had knowledge of the ac-
tion and the attempted service.70 The service
must be accomplished by a method which gives de-
fendant actual or constructive notice,71 and is rea-
sonably calculated to afford him the constitutional
protection of due process of law.72 It must apprise
defendant of what is required of him and of the
consequences which may follow if he neglects to de-
fend the action.78
b. Personal Service
A personal Judgment which Is rendered without serv-
ice of process on, or legal notice to, defendant Is void In
the absence of a voluntary appearance or waiver.
A personal judgment rendered against a defend-
ant without service of process on him, or other suf-
ficient legal notice to him, is without jurisdiction
and void,74 unless he has appeared voluntarily, as
discussed infra § 26, or otherwise has waived per-
sonal service,75 or has acknowledged service,76 or
has authorized its acceptance in his behalf.77 In a
proceeding in rem, or quasi in rem, a valid per-
sonal judgment cannot be rendered against de-
fendant without personal service of process on him,
in the absence of his voluntary appearance.78
70. Ariz.— National Metal Co. v.
Greene Consol. Copper Co., 89 P.
535, 11 Ariz. 108.
33 C.J. p 1081 note 98.
71. N.Y. — In re Renard's Estate, 39
N.Y.S.2d 968, 179 Misc. 885.
Pa. — In re Komara's Estate, 166 A.
577, 811 Pa. 135.
Constructive service generally see
infra subdivision c of this section.
72. D.C.— Wise v. Herzog, 114 F.2d
486, 72 App.D.C. 335.
N.Y.— -Standish v. Standish, 40 N.Y.
S.2d 538, 179 Misc. 564.
73. Cal.— Peabody v. Phelps, 9 Cal
213.
33 C.J. p 1081 note 1.
Process and service sufficient to
support default Judgment see in-
fra § 191.
74. U.-S. — Griffin v. Griffin, App.D.C.,
66 S.Ct. 556, rehearing denied 66 8.
Ct 975— In re Gayle, C.C.A.Canal
Zone, 136 F.2d 973, petition dis-
missed 64 S.Ct 157, 320 U.S. 806,
88 L.Ed. 487.
.Ala. — Morrison v. Covington, 100 So.
124. 211 Ala. 181— Corpus Juris
cited in Ex parte Whistler, 199 So.
876, 878, 29 Ala.App. 583.
Ariz.— Blair v. Blair, 62 P.2d 1321,
48 Ariz. 501.
Jowa, — Stier v. Iowa State Traveling
Men's Ass'n, 201 N.W. 328, 199
Iowa 118, 59 A.L.R. 1384.
;Kan. — Gibson v. Enright, 9 P.2d 971,
135 Kan. 181.
ZKy.— Hughes v. Hughes, 278 S.W.
121, 211 Ky. 799.
Mo.— Noell v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.,
74 S.W.2d 7, 335 Mo. 687, 94 A.L.R.
684, followed in 74 S.W.2d 14.
:Mont.— Holt v. Sather, 264 P. 108, 81
Mont 442.
;N.J.— Baker v. Josephsota, 44 A.2d
909, 137 N.J.Eq. 377, reversed on
other grounds 46 A.2d 904, 138 N.
J.BQ. 107.
:.N.M. — State ex rel. Truitt v. District
Court of Ninth Judicial Dist, Cur-
ry County, 96 P.2d 710. 44 N.M,
16, 126 A.L.R. 651.
~N.Y. — In re Galvin's Estate, 274 N
Y.S. 846, 153 Misc. 11.
:N.C.— Dunn v. Wilson, 187 &E, 802
210 N.C. 493.
sr.D. — Corpus Juris cited in Ellison
v. Baird, 293 N.W. 793, 794, 70 N.
D. 226— Corpus Juris cited in Dar-
ling & Co. v. Burchard, 284 N.W.
856, 862, 69 N.D. 212.
Ohio.— In re Blue's Estate, 32 N.R2d
499, 67 Ohio App. 37.
Okl.— Skipper v. Baer, 277 P. 930,
136 Okl. 286.
Pa.— Potter v. Potter, Pa., 42 Dist
& Co. 42.
Tenn. — Dickson v. Simpson, 113 S.
W.2d 1190, 172 Tenn, 680, 116 A.L.
R. 380.
Va,— Lockard v. Whitenack, 144 S*E.
606, 151 Va, 143.
W.Va. — Hayhurst v. X Kenny Trans-
fer Co., 158 S.E. 506, 110 W.Va,
395.
Wis.— Saric v. Brlos, 19 N.W.2d 903,
247 Wis. 400.
33 C.J. p 1082 note 4 — 34 C.J. p 533
note 39.
Service within state see infra subdi-
vision d of this section.
What constitutes personal service
see the C.J.S. title Process §§ 25-
42, also 50 C.J. p 468 <note 9-p 490
note 62.
"Jurisdiction, of the person" is ob-
tained, so that a valid judgment may
be rendered, when prescribed notice
has been given to litigant proceed-
ed against to enable him to appear
and make defense. — Wagner v. Peo-
ples Building & Loan Ass'n, 167 S.
W.2d 825, 292 Ky. 691.
It is not within the power of any
tribunal to make a binding adjudica-
tion of the rights in personam of
parties not brought before it by due
process of law. — National Licorice
Co. v. National Labor Relations
Board, 60 S.Ct 569, 309 U.S. 350,
84 L.Ed. 799.
Actions affecting title to property
within court's jurisdiction, but not
seized or otherwise brought under
court's direct control for disposi-
tion, and involved only incidentally
because of effect on its title of de-
cree or judgment entered, are usual-
ly held to be in personam, so as to
require personal service of process
on defendants.— State ex rel. Truitt
v. District Court of Ninth Judicial
'
Dist, Curry County, 96 P.2d 710, 44
. 16, 126 A.L.R. 651.
Personal judgment on cross petition
held void
Ky.— Capper v. Short, 11 S.W.2d 717,
226 Ky. 689.
75. N.T.— In re Galvin's Estate, 274
N.Y.S. 846, 153 Misc. 11. .
W.Va.— Hayhurst v. J. Kenny Trans-
fer Co., 158 S.E. 506, 110 W.Va.
395.
76. N.J.— Fidelity Union Trust Co.
v. Union Cemetery Ass'-n, 40 A.2d
205, 136 N.J.Eq. 15, affirmed 45
A.2d 670, 137 N.J.Ea. 455, and 45
A.2d 698, 137 N.J.EQ. 456.
Acknowledgment of service after
appearance term has been held too
late to preserve suit as pending ac-
tion, and judgment rendered in suc-
ceeding term without other process
was void.— Bolton v. Keys, 144 S.B.
406, 38 Ga.App. 573.
77. W.Va.— Hayhurst v. J. Kenny
Transfer Co., 158 S.E. 506. 110 W.
Va. 395.
78. Ga,— Corpus Juris quoted la
Webb & Martin v. Anderson-Mc-
Griff Hardware Co., 3 S.E.2d 882,
885, 188 Ga, 291.
111. — Barnett v. Cook County, 26
N.E.2d 862, 373 111. 516 — Griffin v.
Cook County, 16 N.E.2d 906, 369
111. 380, 118 A.L.R. 1157.
Kan. — Union Central Life Ins. Co. v.
Irrigation Loan & Trust Co., 78 P.
2d 72! 146 Kan. 550.
Ky. — Kitchen v. New York Trust
Co., 168 «S.W.2d 5, 292 Ky. 706 —
Bond v. Wheeler, 247 S.W. 708, 197
Ky. 437.
N.M.— State ex rel. Truitt v. Dis-
trict Court of Ninth Judicial Dist,
Curry County, 96 P.2d 710, 44 N.M.
16, 126 A.L.R. 651.
N.T.— In re Galvin's Estate, 274 N.
T.S. 846, 153 Misc. 11.
Tenn. — Commerce Union Bank v.
Sharber, 100 S.W.2d 243, 20 Tenn.
App. 451.
33 C.J. p 1084 note 15.
Extent of jurisdiction of court In
absence . of personal service of
process see Courts § 83 b (1).
Judgment in rem see infra I 908;
§ 24
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.&
Substituted and Constructive Service; Pub-
lication
Ordinarily no valid personal Judgment may be ren-
dered against a defendant on whom the service of proc-
ess was merely constructive or by publication and who
did not appear.
It has been held that a state has the right to pre-
scribe the mode of serving the process of its own
courts on its own resident citizens, and that a judg-
ment is valid, at least until set aside in a direct
proceeding for that purpose, when based on such
a form of citation as the law authorizes, although
without actual notice to defendant79 However, a
personal judgment on merely constructive service is
not entitled to full faith and credit in the courts of
another state, under the constitutional provision in
that regard,80 and the weight of authority is to the
effect that no valid personal judgment may be ren-
79. U.S. — Santiago v. Nogueras,
Puerto Rico, 29 S.Ct 608, 214 TJ.S.
260, 58 L.Ed. 989.
Ga. — Benton v. Maddox, 192 S.E. 316,
56 Ga.App. 132.
HI. — Barnett v. Cook County, 26 N.E.
2d 862, 373 III. 516— Griffln v. Cook
County, 16 N.E.2d 906, 869 111. 380,
118 A.L.R. 1167.
Ind.— Pattison v. Grant Trust & Sav-
ings Co., 144 N.B. 26, 195 Ind. 313.
Me.— Jordan v. McKay, 165 A. 902,
132 Me. 55.
Minn.— Murray v. Murray, 198 N.W.
307, 159 Minn. 111.
Mont.— Holt v. gather, 264 P. 108,
81 Mont. 442.
N.Y.— Continental Nat. Bank of Bos-
ton v. Thurber. 26 N.Y.S. 956, 74
Hun 632, affirmed Continental Nat
Bank of Boston v. United States
Book Co., 37 N.E. 828, 143 N.Y.
648 — In re Auto Mut. Indemnity
Co., 14 N.Y.S.2d 601.
33 C.J. p 1083 note 9.
Substituted service see the C.J.S.
title Process §§ 43-53, also 50 C.
J. p 490 note 64-p 496 note 99.
Judgment rendered on substituted
or constructive service is as con-
clusive on residents of state not
residents of county of suit as one
rendered on personal service. — Wer-
ner v. W. H. Shons Co., 173 N.E. 486,
341 HI. 478*
Compliance with statute
Where jurisdiction is obtained by
a prescribed form of constructive
notice, the statutory conditions on
which the service depends must be
strictly construed, and unless stat-
ute has been complied with court
has no jurisdiction to render judg-
ment— Pinon v. Pollard, 158 P.2d
254. 69 Oal.App.2d 129.
Service held insufficient to support
judgment
(1) On tenant of apartment house
. by leaving copy of papers in outer
hall.-<!lover v. Urban, 142 A. 389,
108 Conn. 13.
(2) Leaving- process at apartment
from which defendant had previous-
ly moved to another state. — Rogan
v. Liberty Mut Ins. Co., 25 N.E.2d
188, 305 Mass. 186.
80. Ga. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Webb & Martin v. Anderson-Mc-
Griff Hardware Co., 3 S.E.2d 882,
885, 188 Ga, 291.
33 C.J. p 1083 note 10.
81. U.'S. — Pennoyer v. Neff, Or., 95
U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565— Barter v.
Continental Casualty Co., C.C.A.
Mo., 48 F.2d 467, appeal dismissed
52 S.Ct. 2. 284 U.S. 578, 76 L.Ed,
502.
Cal.— Williams v. Williams, 213 P.
508, 60 Cal.App. 675.
Ga. — Corpus Juris quoted in Webb &
Martin v. Anderson-McGrin? Hard-
ware Co., 3 S.E.2d 882, 885, 188 Ga.
291— B. Miflin Hood Brick Co. v.
Mangham, 131 S.E. 172, 161 Ga.
457 — Sweet v. Awtry, 30 S.B.2d
799, 71 Ga.App. 341.
Iowa. — Security Sav. Bank v. Cimp-
rich, 203 N.W. 24, 199 Iowa 1061.
Ky. — Bond v. Wheeler, 247 S.W. 708,
197 Ky. 437.
La.— Liles v. Barnhart, 93 So. 490,
152 La. 419.
Md. — Ortman v. Coane, 31 A.2d 320,
181 Md. 596, 145 A.L.R. 1388.
N.J.— Reichert v. United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, 183 A. 728, 14 N.J.Misc.
106.
N.M.-7-State ex rel. Truitt v. Dis-
trict Court of Ntoth Judicial Dist.,
Curry County, 96 P.2d 710, 44
N.M. 16, 126 A.L.R. 651.
N.Y.— Matthews v. Matthews, 219 N.
Y.S. 333, 128 Misc. 309.
Utah.— Ricks v. Wade,. 93 P.2d 479,
97 Utah 402.
Wyo. — Kimbel v. Osborn, 156 (P.2d
279.
33 C.J. p 1083 note 11.
56
dered against a defendant on whom the service of
process was merely constructive and who did not
appear.81
d. Extraterritorial Service
Service of process on a nonresident beyond the ter-
ritorial Jurisdiction of the court from which the process
issued will not support a personal Judgment against the
nonresident. It has also been held that extraterritorial
service on a resident will not support a personal Judg-
ment against him.
It is a fundamental principle that a judgment af-
fecting personal rights must be founded on service
of process, within the territorial jurisdiction of the
court on the party to be affected.82 Accordingly, a
valid personal judgment cannot be rendered against
a nonresident based on process served on him be-
yond the limits of the state from whose courts the
process issued,83 and such a judgment cannot be
As to nonresidents see infra subdi-
vision e of this section.
Under a statute providing- for
service by publication on nonresi-
dents only, a Judgment on such serv-
ice against a resident is void. — Main
v. Kick, 161 N.W. 711, 180 Iowa 50—
Oziah v. Howard, 128 N.W. 864, 140
Iowa 199.
82. U.'S.— Sugg v. Hendrix, C.CLA.
Miss., 142 F.2d 740— De Bouchel v.
Candler, D.C.Ga., 296 F. 482, 485.
Ariz.— Blair v, Blair, 62 P.2d 1321,
48 Ariz. 501.
Ky. — Kitchen v. New York Trust
Co., 1C8 S.W.2d 5. 202 Ky. 706.
Mo. — Noell v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.,
74 S.W.2d 7, 335 Mo. 687, 94 A.L.R.
684, followed in 74 S.W.2d 14.
83. TJ.-S. — Oxley v. Sweetland, CCA*
W.Va., 96 P.2d 53 — Campbell V.
City of Hickman, D.C.Ky., 45 V.
Supp. 517.
Ark.— Miller v. Maryland Casualty
Co., 180 S.W.2d 581, 207 Ark. 812.
Del. — Webb Packing Co. v. Harmon,
196 A. 158, 9 W.W.Harr. 22.
Fla.— Newton v. Bryan, 194 So. 282,
142 Fla. 14.
111.— Wickiser v. Powers, 57 N.E.2d
522, 324 IlLApp. 130.
Iowa. — 'Sloan-Pierce Lumber Co. v.
Gardiner, 8 N.W.2d 531, 281 Iowa
1194— Fisher & Van Gilder v. First
Trust Joint-Stock Land Bank of
Chicago, 231 N.W. 671. 210 Iowa
531, 69 A.L.R. 1340.
La. — Evans v. Evans, 116 So. 831.
166 La. 145.
Md. — Ortman v. Coane, $1 A.2d 320,.
181- Md. 596, 145 A.L.R. 1388.
N.Y. — Bank of New Tork v. Leg-
get, 46 N.Y.S.2d 465, 267 App.
E>iv. 875, appeal denied 50 N.E.2*
173, 268 App.Div. 779, appeal dis-
missed 56 N.B.2d 115, 29* N.Y.
702, appeal dismissed 57 N.&2&
838, 293 N.Y. 759— Maguire v..
Blodgett, 41 N.Y.S.2d 130, 265
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 24
authorized constitutionally even by express stat-
ute.84 However, such service may be sufficient to
support a judgment in rem, or quasi in rem, as dis-
cussed infra §§ 908, 911. Although there is author-
ity to the contrary,85 it has been held that extra-
territorial service on a resident of the state will not
support a personal judgment,86 and that, in the ab-
sence of statute, a personal judgment is void, even
where it is based on the service of process within
the state, but beyond the limits of the county or dis-
trict, which comprise the territorial jurisdiction of
the court.*7
4. Nonresidents
A vatid personal Judgment may be rendered against
a nonresident only where he is brought within the Juris-
diction of the court by the service of process or notice
on him within its territorial Jurisdiction, or by his vol-
untarily appearing and submitting to Its Jurisdiction.
Mere constructive or substituted service Is not sufficient.
A valid persona;! judgment may be rendered against
a nonresident only where he has been brought with-
in the jurisdiction of the court by the service of
process or notice made on him within its territorial
jurisdiction,88 or by such service on some one au-
Div. $70, affirmed 50 N.E.24 800,
290 N.T. 907— Heilbrun v. Kellogg,
1 N.T.S.2d 193, 253 App.Div. 753,
motion denied 16 N,E.2d 104, 278
N.Y. 564, motion granted 18 N.B.2d
312, 279 N.T. 683, affirmed 18 N.
B.2d 861, 279 N.T. 773— Gore v.
Pennsylvania R. Co., 259 N.T.S.
410, 144 Misc. 639, affirmed 260 N.
T.S. 941, 236 App.D*v. 881— Engel
v. Engel, 22 N.T.S.2d 445-— Merkle
v. Sable, 197 N.T.S. 576.
N.C.— Casey v. Barker. 14 S.E.2d 429,
219 N.C. 465.
N.D. — Darling & Co. v. Burchard,
284 N.W. 856, 69 N.D. 212.
Ohio.— Ades v. Ades, 45 N.E.2d 416,
70 Ohio App. 487.
Okl.— Royal Neighbors of America
v. Fletcher, 227 P. 426, 99 Okl.
297.
Or. — Mt. Vernon Nat. Bank v. Morse,
264 P. 439, 128 Or. 64.
Fa.— Vaughn v. Love, 188 A. 299,
324 Pa. 276, 107 A.L.R, 1336—
Potter v. 'Potter, 42 Pa.Dist & Co.
42 — Evans v. Todd, Com.Pl., 35
Luz.Leg. Reg. 102.
Tenn. — Dickson v. Simpson, 113 S.
W.2d 1190, 172 Tennu 680, 116 A.
L.R. 380— -Commerce Union Bank
v. Sharber, 100 S.W.2d 243, 20
Tenn.App. 451.
Tex. — Bradshaw v. Peacock, Civ.
App., 191 S.W.2d 698— Knox v.
Quinn, Civ.App., 164 S.W.2d 580
— Eaton v. Husted, Civ. App., 163
S.W.2d 439, affirmed 172 S.W.2d
493, 141 Tex. 349— Hicks v. Sias,
Civ.App., 102 S.W.2d 460, error re-
fused— Steger v. Shofner, Civ.App.,
54 S.W.2d 1013— Blair v. Carney*
Civ.App.. 44 S.W.2d 1031, error re-
fused— Wilson v. Beck, Civ.App.,
286 S.W. 315.
Utah.— Ricks v. Wade, 93 P.2d 47$,
97 Utah 402.
Wash. — State v. Plummer, 226 P.
273, 130 Wash. 135.
33 C.J. p 1084 note 17.
In equity see Equity fi 175 b.
Extraterritorial service generally see
the C.J.S. title Process § 32, also
50 C.J. p 474 note 76~p 476 note
25.
Personal service out of state in lieu
of publication see the C.J.S. title
Process §§ 73, 74, also 50 C.J. P
542 note 80-p 545 note 54. ,
Courts exercise utmost care and
good faith in dealing with nonresi-
dents against whom personal judg-
ment is sought oh notice served out-
side state.— Fidelity & Casualty Co.
of New York v. Bank of Plymputh,
237 N.W. 234, 213 Iowa 1058.
84. U.S. — Pennoyer v. Nefl, Or., 95
U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565.
Iowa.— Allen v. Allen, 298 N.W. 869,
230 Iowa 504, 136 A.L.R. 617.
33 C.J. p 1085 note 18.
Under "due process" clause see Con-
stitutional Law § 619.
85. Tex. — Becker v. Becker, Civ.
App., 218 S.W. 542— McCaulley v.
Western National Bank, Civ.App.f
173 S.W. 1000.
8& Cal.— Pinon v. Pollard, 158 P.2d
254, 69 Cal.App.2d 129.
111. — Barnett v. Cook County, 26 N.
E.2d 862, 373 111. 516.
33 C.J. p 1085 note 23.
By publication and mail
' Service of summons on a resident
of state absent therefrom by pub-
lication and mailing of copy of sum-
mons and complaint to defendant's
address outside the state did not
give court jurisdiction to enter mon-
ey judgment against defendant in
personal injury action. — Pinon v.
Pollard, 158 P.2d 254, 69 Cal.App.2d
169.
87. Neb.— Braun v. Quinn, 199 N.W.
828, 112 Neb. 485, 39 A.L.R. 411.
33 C.J. p 1085 note 27.
88. U.S.— Wilson v. •Seligman, Mo.,
12 S.Ct 541, 144 U.S. 41, 36 UEd.
338— McQuillen v. National Cash
Register Co.. C.C.A.Md., 112 F.2d
877, certiorari denied 61 S.Ct. 140,
311 U.S. 695, 85 L.Ed. 450, re-
hearing denied 61 S.Ct. 316, -311 U.
S. 729, 85 L.Ed. 474— McQuillen
v. Dillon, C.C.A.N.T., 98 F.2d 726,
certiorari denied 59 S.Ct 251, 305
U.S. 655, 83 L.Ed. 424— Oxley v.
Sweetlaud, C.C.A,W.Va., 94 F.2d
33— Chicago Joint -Stock Land
Bank v. Minnesota Loan & Trust
Co., C.C.A.Minn., 57 P.2d 70—
Beaver Board Cos. v. Imbrie, D.C.
N.T., 47 P.2d 271.
57
Ala.— Campbell v. State, 5 So.2d 466,
242 Ala. 215— Naff T. Fairfleld-
American Nat Bank, 165 So. 224,
231 Ala, 388.
Ark. — Sinclair Refining Co. v.
Bounds, 127 S.W.Sd 629, 198 Ark.
149— Gainsburg v. Dodge, 101 S.W.
2d 178, 193 Ark. 473.
D.C. — Densby v. Acacia Mut. Life
Ass'n, 78 P.2d 203, 64 App.D.C.
319, 101 A.L.R. 863.
Del.— Webb Packing Co. v. Harmon,
196 A. 158, 9 W.W.Harr. 22.
Ga. — Blount v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 9 S.E.2d 65, 190 Ga. 301
— I^in v. Nix, 7 S.E.2d 733, 189
Ga. 772— Coral Gables Corporation
v. Hamilton, 147 S.E. 494, 168 Ga.
182— Wyse'v. McKinney, 179 S.E.
860, 51 Ga-App. 204.
111. — Dunham v. Kauffman, 52 N.E.
2d 143, 385 lit 79. 154 A.L.R. 90.
Iowa. — McGaffin v. Helmts, 230 N.W.
532, 210 Iowa 108.
Ky.— Kitchen v. New Tork Trust
Co., 168 S.W.2d 5. 292 Ky. 706.
Md. — Employers' Liability Assur.
Corporation v. -Perkins, 181 A. 43$.
169 Md. 269.
Mass. — Harvey v. Fiduciary Trust
Co., 13 N.E.2d 299, 299 Mass. 457
— Durfee v. Durfee, 200 NJ33. 395,
293 Mass. 472— Schmidt v.
Schmidt, 182 N.E. 374, 280 Mass.
2-16— Kling v. McTaraahan. 178 N.
E. 8*1. 277 Mass. 886.
Mich. — -Stewart v. Eaton, 283 N.W.
651, 287 Mich. 466, 120 A.L.R. 1354.
N.M.— State ex rel. Truitt v. District
Court of Ninth Judicial Dist., Cur-
ry County, 96 P.3d 710, 44 N.M.
16, 126 A.L.R. 651.
N.T.— Jackson v. Jackson, 49 N.B.2d
988, 290 N.T. 512, 147 A.L.R. 668
—Geary v. Geary, 6 N.E.2d 67, 272
N.T, 330, 108 A.L.R. 1293— Gar-
fein v. Mdnnls, 162 N.E. 73, 248
N.T. 261— Kittredge v. Grannis,
155 N.E. 93, 244 N.T. 182— Stoltz
v. Stoltz, 238 N.T.S. 207, 1S5 Misc.
713— In re Auto Mut Indemnity
Co., 14 N.T.S.2d 601— Rodier v.
Fay, 7 N.T.S.2d 744.
N.C.—: Adams & Childers v. Parker
& Harrison, 138 S.E. 405, 194 N.
C. 48,
Tex.— Adam v. Saenger, Civ.App./
101 S.W.2d 1046, certiorari granted
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
iorized to accept service in his behalf,** or by his
voluntary appearance or submission to the jurisdic-
tion of the court,90 or by his otherwise waiving
lack of service or jurisdiction.91 A personal judg-
ment rendered without such service of process or
notice on the nonresident, or his voluntary appear-
ance or waiver, is void,92 even though he had
knowledge of the pendency of the action or pro-
58 S.Ct. 28, 302 U.S. 668, 82 L.
Ed. 515, reversed on other grounds
58 S.Ct. 454, 303 U.-S. 59, 82 L.Ed.
649, rehearing denied 58 S.Ct. 640,
303 U.S. 666, 82 L.Ed. 1123, cer-
tlorari denied Saenger v. Adam, 59
<3.Ct 832, 307 U.S. 628, 83 L.Ed.
1511— Steger v. Shofner, Civ.App.,
54 S.W.2d 1013— Flinn v. Krot2,
Civ.App., 293 S.W. 625.
Wyo. — Closson v. Closson, 215 P.
485, 30 Wyo. 1, 29 A.L.R. 1371.
33 C.J. p 1085 note 29, p 1086 note
33, p'l075 note 58.
Extraterritorial service as insuffi-
cient see supra subdivision d of
this section.
Joint defendants see infra S 83.
Jurisdiction of nonresidents gener-
ally see Courts §§ 88-87.
A state has power to provide for
notice of actions against nonresi-
dents found within its borders in
such manner as it may see fit and
to render personal judgments
against them based thereon, pro-
vided method employed gives rea-
sonable notice and affords fair op-
portunity to be heard before Issues
are decided. — Taplin v. Atwater, 8
N.E.2d 786, 297 Mass. 302.
Sufficiency of service
A nonresident defendant who is
served in person in commonwealth
with notice of pendency of action
warning defendant to appear and
show cause why judgment should
not be rendered against him is a
party to action so that a binding
personal judgment may be rendered
against him, since notice itself is
"process" within statute permitting
personal action to be maintained
against nonresident who has been
served with process in common-
wealth,—Taplin v. Atwater, 8
786, 297 Mass. 302.
Service anywhere in state mfflcient
La. — Roper v. Brooks, 9 3o.2d 485,
201 La. 135— Union City Transfer
v. Fields, App., 199 So. 206.
A0 against heirs
Where no personal judgment had
been obtained against nonresident
for lack of personal service within
state, complainants acquired no
greater rights against resident heirs
of nonresident where nonresident
died pending appeal— Commerce Un-
ion Bank v. Sharber, TennApp., 100
S,W.2d 243.
89. Ark.— Sinclair Refining Co. v.
Bounds, 127 S.W.2d 629, 198 Ark.
149.
Del.— Webb Packing Co. v. Harmon,
196 A. 158, 9 W.W.B3arr. 22.
La.— Mitchell v. Ernesto, App., 141
So. 818.
Md.— Employers' Liability Assur.
Corporation v. Perkins, 181 A.
436, 169 Md. 269.
Attorney's acknowledgment of serv-
ice
Ga.— Davis v. Davis, 21 S.E. 1002,
96 Ga. 136.
Notice to attorney, as required toy
statute
Ala. — Timmerman v. Martin, 176 So.
198, 234 Ala. 622.
Service on truck driver insufficient
Ark. — Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of
Southeast Arkansas v. O'Neal, 104
S.W.2d 808, 19-3 Ark. 1143.
9a U.S.— Wilson v. Seligman, Mo.,
12 S.Ct. 541, 144 U.S. 41, 36 L.
Ed. "338— McQuillen v. National
Cash Register Co., C.C.A.Md., 112
F.2d 877, certiorari denied 61 S.
Ct. 140, 311 U.S. 695, 85 L.Ed. 450,
rehearing denied 61 S.Ct 316, 311
U.S. 729, 85 L.Ed. 474— Oxley v.
Sweetland, C.C.A.W.Va., 94 F.2d
33 — Chicago Joint Stock Land
Bank v. Minnesota Loan & Trust
Co., aC.A.Minn., 57 F.2d 70.
Ala.— Naff v. Fairfleld-American Nat.
Bank, 165 So. 224, 231 Ala. 388
— Stoer v. Ocklawaha River Farms
Co., 138 So. 270, 223 Ala. 690.
Ark. — Gainsburg v. Dodge, 101 S.W.
2d 178, 193 Ark, 473.
Cal.— Pinon v. Pollard, App., 158 P.
2d 254.
Ga.— Fain v. Nix, 7 S.E.2d 733, 189
Ga. 772— Peeples v. Mullins, 168 S.
E. 785, 176 Ga. 743— Irons v.
American Nat Bank, 165 S.E. 738,
175 Ga. 552, followed in 165 S.E.
741, 175 Ga. 558— Coral Gables
Corporation v. Hamilton, 147 S.E.
494, 168 Ga. 182— Wyse v. McKin-
ney, 179 S.E. 860, 51 Ga.App. 204
— Rhodes v. Southern Flour &
Grain Co., 163 S.E. 237, 45 GaApp.
13.
Ky.— Kitchen v. New Tork Trust
Co., 168 S.W.2d 5, 292 Ky. 706—
Dean v. Stillwell, 145 S.W.2d 830,
284 Ky. 639.
Md.— Employers' Liability Assur.
Corporation v. Perkins, 181 A, 436,
169 Md. 269.
Mass.— Harvey v. Fiduciary Trust
Co., 13 N.E.2d 299, 299 Mass. 457
—Schmidt v. Schmidt 182 N.E.
374, 280 Mass. 216.
Mich.— Stewart v. Eaton, 283 N.W.
651, 287 Mich. 466, 120 A.L.R. 1354.
Mo.— Publicity Bldg. Realty Corpo-
ration v. Thpmann, 183 S.W.2d 69,
353 Mo. 493— Hoffman v. Mechan-
ics-American Nat. Bank of St
Louis, App., 287 S.W. 874.
N.T.-^Jackson v. Jackson, 49 N.E.2d
988, 290 N.T. 512, 147 A.L.R. 668
—Geary v. Geary, 6 N.E.2d 67,
58
272 N.T. 390, 108 AL.R. 1293—
Kittredge v. Grannis, 155 N.E. 93,
244 N.T. 182— Rodier v. Fay, 7 N.
T.S.2d 744.
N.C.— Southern Mills v. Armstrong,
27 S.E.2d 281, 2£3 N.C. 495, 148 A.
L.R. 1248— Bridger v. Mitchell, 121
S.E. 661, 187 N.C. 374.
Tex. — Adam v. Saenger, Civ.App., 101
S.W.2d 1046, certiorari granted 58
S.Ct. 28, 302 U.-S. 668, 82 L.Ed.
515, reversed on other grounds 58
S.Ct 454, 303 U.S. 59, 82 L.Ed. 649,
rehearing denied 58 S.Ct 640, 303
U.S. 666, 82 L.Bd. 1123, certiorari
denied Saenger v. Adams, 59 S.Ct.
832, 307 U.S. 628, 83 L.Ed. 1511
—Flinn v. Krotz, Civ App., 29«
S.W. 625.
33 C.J. p 1085 note 30, p 1086 note
33, p 1075 note 58.
Where nonresident defendant
represented by curator only and
there was no personal appearance,
no judgment could be rendered
against him. — Robinson v. U. S., D.
C.La,, 33 F.2d 545, reversed on other
grounds, C.C.A., U. S. v. Robinson,
40 F.2d 14.
Special appearance
If defendant appearing specially
was nonresident at time of service
of writ no judgment could be ren-
dered against him. — Bay State
Wholesale Drug Co. v. Whitman, 182
N.E. 361, 280 Mass. 188.
Judgment on cross demand may
be rendered against a nonresident
plaintiff submitting to the juris-
diction of the court by the institu-
tion of the suit.— Andrews v. White-
head, Tex.Civ.App., 60 S.W. 800.
93* U.S.— Wilson v. Seligman, Mo.,
12 S.Ct. 541, 144 U.S. 41, 36 L.
Ed. 338.
Ga.— Blount v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 9 S.E.2d 65, 190 Ga. 301
— Coral Gables Corporation v.
Hamilton, 147 S.E. 494, 168 Ga.
182.
Md.— Employers' Liability Assur.
Corporation v. Perkins, 181 A. 436,
169 Md. 269.
33 C.JT. p 1086 note 34.
92. U.S.— Commonwealth of Ken-
tucky, for Use and Benefit of Kern
v. Maryland Casualty Co. of Bal-
timore, Md., C.C.A.Ky., 112 F.2d
352 — Beaver Board Cos. v. Imbrie,
D.C.N.T., 47 F.2d 271.
Ala.— Ex parte Luther, 168 So. 59 6,
232 Ala. 518— Ex parte Halsten,
149 So. 213, 227 Ala, 183— Ex parte
Cullinan, 139 So. 255, 224 Ala. 263,
81 A.L.R. 160— Stoer v. Ocklawaha
River Farms Co., 138 So. 270, 223
Ala. 690.
Del.— Hall v. Trans-Lux Daylight
49 C J. S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 24
ceeding.93 It has been held that the fact that de-
fendant is domiciled within the state does not jus-
tify the rendition of a judgment in personam against
him, where the only service of process is by publi-
cation, and he is without the territorial limits of the
state and does not appear.94
Constructive or substituted service alone, will not
support a personal judgment against a nonresi-
dent,95 unless he can be deemed to have assented to
such -mode of service.96, A statute purporting to
authorize a judgment against nonresidents on con-
structive or extraterritorial service has been held
to that extent unconstitutional and void.97 Flow-
ever, it has been held that constructive service, as
by publication, will give the court such jurisdiction
over a nonresident that its judgment, although not
Picture Screen Corporation, 171
A. 226, 20 Del.Ch. 78.
Ga. — Ford v. Southern Ry. Co., 125
S.E. 479, 33 Ga.App. 24.
La. — Krotz Springs Oil & Mineral
Water Co. v. Shirk, 116 So. 488,
165 La. 1005.
Mass. — Commissioner of Banks v.
Cosmopolitan Trust Co., 148 N.B.
609, 253 Mass. 205, 41 A.L.R. 658.
Miss.— Hume v. Inglis, 122 So. 535,
154 Miss. 481.
N.T. — Sweeney v. National Assets
Corporation, 246 N.T.S. 315, 139
Misc. 223.
N.C.— Bizzell v. Mitchell, 142 S.E.
706, 195 N.C. 484— Bridger v.
Mitchell, 121 S.E. 661, 187 N.C.
374.
Tex. — Hicks v. -Sias, Civ.App., 102 S.
W.2d 460, error refused — Steger
v. Shofner, Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d
1013.
"A person residing outside the
state is not required to come within
its borders and submit his contro-
versy to its courts because of notice
of the suit at the place of his resi-
dence, and an ordinary personal
judgment for money, invalid for
want of service amounting to due
process of law, Is as ineffective in
as outside the state." — Common-
wealth of Kentucky, for Use and
Benefit of Kern v. Maryland Casu-
alty Co. of Baltimore, McU, C.C.A.
Ky., 112 P.2d 352, 555.
Judgment on cross petition against
nonresident defendants, where no
process was issued on cross petition,
is void.
Ky. — Carter v, Capshaw, 60 S.W.2d
959, 249 Ky. 483.
Tex. — Adam v. Saenger, Civ.App.,
101 S.W.2d 1046, reversed on oth-
er grounds 58 S.Ct. 454, 303 U.S.
59, 82 L.Ed. 649, rehearing denied
58 S.Ct 640, 303 U.S. 666, 82 L.Ed.
1123, certiorari denied Saenger v.
Adam, 59 'S.Ct. 832, 307 U.S. 628,*
83 L.Ed. 1511.
Unauthorized appearance l>y attor-
ney
Appearance of attorney for non-
resident does not give court juris-
diction over nonresident, and per-
sonal Judgment obtained against
nonresident is void ab initio, if ap-
pearance was unauthorized.
N.T. — Amusement Securities Corpo-
ration v. Academy Pictures Dis-
tributing Corporation, 295 N.Y.S.
436, 251 App.Div. 227, affirmed 294
N.T.S. 305, 250 App.Div. 710 and
294 N.T.S. 306, 250 App.Div. 710,
motions denied 295 N.T.S. 472, 250
App.Div. 749, affirmed 13 N.E.2d
471, 277 N.T. 557, reargument de-
nied 14 N.E.2d 383, 277 N.T. 672.
Okl.— Hatfleld v. Lewis, 236 P. 611,
110 Okl. 98.
93. Mich.— Stewart v. Baton, 283 N.
W. 651, 287 Mich. 466, 120 A.L.R.
1354.
94. Cal. — De La Montanya v. De La
Montanya, 44 P. -345, 112 CaL 101,
53 Am.S.R. 165, 82 L.R.A. 82.
Or. — Laughlin v. Hughes, 89 P.2d
568, 161 Or. 295.
95. U.S. — Warmsprings Irr. Dist v.
May, C.C.A.Or., 117 F.2d 802— Mc-
Quillen v. Dillon, C.C.A.N.T., 98
F.2d 726, certiorari denied 59 S.Ct
251, 305 U.S. 655, 83 L.Ed. 424—
Hamilton Michelsen Groves Co. v.
Penney, C.C.A.Fla., 58 F.2d 761—
Campbell v. City of Hickman, D.
C.Ky., 45 F.Supp. 517.
Cal. — Comfort v. Comfort, 112 P.2d
259, 17 Cal.2d 736— Glaston v.
Glaston, 160 P.2d 45, 69 Cal.App.2d
787, certiorari denied 66 S.Ct 484
— Pinon v. Pollard. 158 P.2d 254,
69 Cal.App.2d 129.
Fla. — Newton v. Bryan, 194 So. 282,
142 Fla. 14— Harris Inv. Co. v.
Hood, 167 So. 25, 123 Fla. 598.
Ga. — Hirsch v. Northwestern Mut.
Life Ins. Co., 13 S.E.2d 165, 191
Ga. 524 — Corpus Juris quoted in
Webb & Martin v. Anderson-Mc-
Griff Hardware Co., 3 S.E.2d 882,
885, 188 Ga. 291— Peoples v. Mul-
lins, 168 S.E. 785, 176 Ga. 743—
Edwards Mfg. Co. v. Hood, 145 S.
B. 87, 167 Ga. 144— Ford v. South-
ern Ry. Co., 125 S.E. 479, 33 Ga.
App. 24.
111. — Bank of Edwardsville v. Raf-
faelle, 45 N.E.2d 651, 381 111. 486,
144 A.L.R. 401— Barnett v. Cook
County, 26 N.E.2d 862, 373 111.
516 — Griffin v. Cook County, 16
N.E.2d 906, 369 HI. 380, 118 A.L.R.
1157— Austin v. Royal League, 147
N.E. 106, 316 111. 188.
Ind. — Pattison v. Grant Trust & Sav-
ings Co., 144 N.E. 26, 195 Ind. 813.
Ky.— Dean v. Stillwell, 145 S.W.2d
830, 284 Ky. 639.
Miss. — Hume v. Inglis, 122 So. 535,
154 Miss. 481.
Mo.— "HoflCuaan v. Mechanics- Am gri-
59
can Nat Bank of St Liouis, App.,
287 S.W. 874.
Nev.— Perry v. Edmonds, 84 P.2d 711,
59 Nev. 60.
N.T.— Kellogg v. Kellogg, 203 N.T.
S. 757, 122 Misc. 734.
N.C.— Southern Mills v. Armstrong,
27 S.E.2d 281, 223 N.C. 495, 143
A.L.R. 1248— Bridger v. Mitchell,
121 S,E. 661, 187 N.C. 374.
Okl.— Royal Neighbors of America v
Fletcher, 227 P. 426, 99 Okl. 297.
Or.— Laughlin v. Hughes, 89 P.2d
568, 161 Or. 295.
Pa.— Atlantic Seaboard Natural Gas
Co. v. Whitten. 173 A. 305, 315 Pa.
529, 93 A.L.R. 615— Hughes V.
Hughes, 158 A. 874, 306 Pa, 75.
Tenn. — Lawson v. American Laundry
Machinery Co.. 54 S.W.2d 712, 165
Tenn. ISO — Commerce Union Bank
v. Sharber, 100 S.W.2d 243, 20
Tenn. App. 451.
Tex. — Steger v. Shofner, Civ.App.f 54
S.W.2d 1013— First Nat. Bank v.
C. H. Meyers & Co., Civ.App., 283
S.W. 265 — People's Guaranty State
Bank v. Hill, Civ.App., 256 S.W.
683.
Wis.— Riley v. State Bank of De
Pere, 269 S.W. 722, 223 Wis. 16.
Wyo. — Fremont Consol. Oil Co. v.
Anderson, 12 P.2d 369, 44 Wyo.
313.
33 C.J. p 1085 note 31.
Service by registered mail insuffi-
cient
Ala.— Campbell v. State, 5 So.2d 466,
242 Ala. 215.
Miss. — Cudahy Packing Co. v. Smith,
2 So.2d 347, 191 Miss. 31.
Contractual rights cannot* be liti-
gated cm constructive notice against
nonresidents. — McKleroy v. Dishxnan,
142 So. 41, 225 Ala. 131.
On cross bill
A cross bill stands as original suit
after dismissal of original bill, so
that judgment thereon against non-
resident on notice only by publicar
tion is void. — Lawson v. American
Laundry Machinery Co., 54 S.W.2d
712, 165 Tenn. 180.
96. . Fla.— Newton v. Bryan, 194 So.
282, 142 Fla. 14.
97. U.S.— Cella Commn. Co. v. Boh-
linger, Ark., 147 F. 419, 78 C.CJL
467, 8 L.R.A.,N.S.,.637.
33 C.J. p 1086 note 35.
Under "due process" clause see Con-
stitutional Law § 619,
§ 24
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
enforceable beyond the state, may be satisfied out
of any property of defendant found within the
state,98 and within the jurisdiction of the court,"
and to that extent he is bound by the judgment,
provided all the precedent proceedings relating to
such service strictly conform to the law.1 Never-
theless, the generally prevailing rule is that a per-
sonal judgment against a nonresident rendered on
constructive service is void for all purposes, even
within the state where it has been rendered,2 un-
less defendant appears,8 or unless specific property
within the state has been attached, and thus sub-
jected to the jurisdiction of the court.4 Where nei-
ther person nor property of a nonresident is found
within the state, a judgment with respect to the
rights or obligations of the nonresident is without
jurisdiction and wholly void.5
f . Attachment and Garnishment
A valid Judgment in person am may be rendered
against a defendant In an action begun by attachment
or garnishment only where he has been personally served
with process within the territorial Jurisdiction of the
court or has voluntarily appeared and submitted to Its
Jurisdiction.
Where jurisdiction of an action is acquired by
attachment or garnishment of defendant's property
or credits, although the property or credits so at-
tached or garnished may be subjected to, and bound
by, a judgment rendered in such action, as a judg-
ment in rem, or quasi in rem, as discussed infra §§
908, 911, a valid general judgment in personam may
be rendered against defendant only where he has
been personally served with process,6 or where he
voluntarily appears in the action and thus subjects
himself to the jurisdiction of the court,7 as where
he files a forthcoming or replevy bond.8 Under
some statutes, if defendant is about to remove the
property from the state with the intent to hinder
or delay creditors, arid all the parties are before
the court, a personal judgment may be rendered
98. Ala.— Turnipseed v. Blan, 148
So. 116, 226 Ala, 649.
Tex. — People's Guaranty State Bank
v. Hill, Civ.App., 256 S.W. 683.
33 O.J. p 1086 note 36.
Ownership of notes and checks
follows domicile of their owner, and
the notes and checks do not con-
stitute "money" or "effects" with
situs independent of owner's domi-
cile.— Steger v. Shofner, TexiCiv.
App., 54 S.W.2d 1013,
99. Ind.— Clark v. Clark, 172 N.E.
* 124, 202 Ind. 104,
Tenn. — Commerce Union Bank v.
Sharber, 100 S.W.2d 243, 20 Tenn.
App. 451.
Tex.— Wilson v. Beck, Civ. App., 286
S.W. 315.
Wyo. — Fremont Consol. Oil Co. v.
Anderson, 12 P.2d 369, 44 Wyo.
313.
1. Miss.— Mercantile Acceptance
Corporation v. Hedgepeth, 112 So.
872, 147 Miss. 717.
33 O.J. p 1088 note 57.
2. N.T.— Geary v. Geary, 6 N.E.2d
67, 272 N.Y. 300, 108 A.L.R. 1293—
Forster v. Forster, 46 N.Y.S.2d
320, 182 Misc. 382.
33 C.J. p 1087 note 37.
& N.Y. — Forster v. Forster, supra.
3* C.J. p 1087 note 38.
4L U.S. — Pexmoyer v. Nefl, Or., 95
S.Ct 714, 24 L..Ed. 565— Heyde-
mann v. Westinghouse Electric
Mfg. Co., C.C.A.N.Y., 80 F.2d 837.
Ariz.— Porter v. Duke, 270 -P. 625,
34 Ariz. 217.
Mass. — Roberts v. Anheuser Busch
Brewing Ass'n, 102 N.E. 8' 16, 215
Mass. 341.
K.Y.— Haase T. Michigan Steel Boat
Co., 132 N.Y.S. 1046, 148 AppJDiv.
298, appeal dismissed 104 NJE.
1131, 210 N.Y. 602— Forster v.
Forster, 46 N.Y.S.2d 320, 182 Misc.
382/
N.C.— Adams & Childers v. Packer &
Harrison, 138 S.E. 405, 194 N.C. 48.
Judgment in action begun by at-
tachment or garnishment general-
ly see infra subdivision f of this
section.
Judgment held void, on service by
publication, after attachment of sup-
posed interest in realty, which did
not in fact exist. — Matthews v, Cur-
tis, 151 N.E. 778, 20 Ohio App. 209.
After dissolution of the attach,
ment, there can be no judgment
against defendant, where the juris-
diction in attachment was obtained
by constructive service only. — Theo.
Ascher Co, v, Dougherty, 114 S.W.
1111, 134 Mo.App. 511.
5. Ariz. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Smith v. Normart, 75 P.2d 38, 41,
51 Ariz. 134.
33 C.J. p 1087 note 41.
a Ala. — Oliver v. Klnney, 56 So.
203, 173 Ala. 593.
Ariz. — Brown v. First Nat. Bank of
Winslow, 129 P.2d 664, 59 Ariz.
392.
Fla. — Johnson v. Clark, 193 So. 842,
145 Fla. 258.
Ga. — Collins v. Southern Finance
Corporation, 180 S.E. 744, 51 Ga.
App. 400.
111.— Bloom v. Kahl, 255 Ill.App. 456.
Xja. — Silvennan v. Grinnell, 115 So.
789, 165 La. 587.
K.Y.— Swedosh v. Belding Hosiery
Mills, 6 N.Y.S.2d 532, 168 Misc.
673.
Okl. — Davies v. Thompson, 160 P. 75,
61 Okl. 21, L.BJL1917B 395.
Tex. — 'Big Four Shoe Stores Co. v.
Ludlaaa, O.V.APP., 63 S.W.2d-8S5.
60
Va. — Maryland Casualty Co. v. Par-
rish, 143 S.E. 7.50, 150 Va. 473.
33 C.J. p 1088 notes 4§, 51 — 6 C.J. p
473 note 43.
Process or:
Appearance in garnishment pro-
ceeding generally see Garnish-
ment § 123.
Notice in main action In general
see Attachment 5§ 482-490.
Judgment for excess
In order to warrant recovery In
attachment proceeding exceeding
value of property impounded by
writ, there must be valid personal
service of summons. — Purnell v.
Morton Live Stock Co., 1 S.W.2*
1013, 156 Tenn. 383.
Statutory notice to, and service
on, defendant In attachment take
place of process and service in com-
mon-law actions, both of which sub-
ject him personally to court's juris-
diction and render him liable to
judgment binding all his property. —
Peacock v. J. L Case Co., 162 S.BL
30G, 44 GaJLpp. 499.
7. Ala. — Oliver v. Kinney, 56 So.
203, 173 Ala, 593.
Ga. — Collins v. Southern Finance
Corporation, 180 S.E. 744, 51 Ga.
App. 400.
Va. — Maryland Casualty Co. v. Par-
rish, 143 S.E. 750, 150 Va. 473.
33 C.J. p 1088 note 5-3— 6 OJ. p 478
notes 12, 13.
8. Ga. — Collins v. -Southern Finance
Corporation, ISO S.E. 744, 61 Ga.
App. 400— Blakely Milling A Trad-
Ing Co. v. Thompson, 128 S.E. 688,
34 Ga.App. 129— HensJey v. Mine-
han, 114 S.E. 647, 29 Ga.App. 251.
33 CJ. p 1088 note 53 [d], [e].
Effect of filing bond on right to pro-
ceed to judgment see Attachment
5 313 b (3).
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
against him without the issuance of new process.9
Nonresidents. The same rules apply where de-
fendant in such an action is a nonresident; a val-
id personal judgment may be rendered against him
only where he has been personally served with
process, within the jurisdiction of the court,10 or
has voluntarily appeared and submitted to the ju-
risdiction of the court,11 or acknowledges service
of the writ and waives the benefit of the statutes
respecting absent defendants ;12 and, in the absence
of such service or appearance, a judgment although
expressed in general terms will be effective only
against the property so attached, as discussed infra
§§ 908, 911. It cannot be made the basis of further
proceedings in personam against defendant.13
g. Defective Process
A Judgment is void if it is based on a process which
is so radlcaliy defective as to be equivalent to no proc-
ess; but may be merely voidable if the defect is a mere-
irregularity which does not prevent the process from
constituting legal notice to defendant.
A judgment is void where it is based on process
which is so radically defective as to be equivalent to
no process,14 and this rule applies with respect to-
such a defect in the issuance of an alias or pluries
writ.15 A defective process, however, may be suf-
ficient to constitute legal notice and support the
judgment,16 and if the process, although imperfect
or irregular in some particulars, is sufficiently com-
plete to constitute a legal notice to defendant, and
to inform him of the essential facts he is entitled to
know, the consequent judgment is not void,17 par-
9. Ark.— Hutchison v. First Nat.
Bank, 24$ S.W. 484, 156 Ark. 142.
10. Ga.— Chastain v. Alford. 20 S.E.
2d 150, 67 Ga.App. 316.
Idaho.— Sunderlln v. Warner, 246 P.
1. 42 Idaho 479.
111.— Hogue v. Corbit, 41 N.E. 219,
156 111. 540, 47 Am.S.R. 232.
Iowa. — Darrah v. Watson, 86 Iowa
116.
La.— -Pelican Well & Tool Supply Co.
v. Johnson, 195 So. 514, 194 La.
987 — Latham v. Glasscock, 108 So.
1"00, 160 La. 1089 — Whitney Central
Trust & Savings Bank v. Norton,
102 So. 306, 157 La. 199.
Miss.— Sellers v. Powell, 152 So. 492,
168 Miss. 682 — Clark v. Louisville
& N. R. Co., 130 So. 302, 158 Miss.
287.
Mo.— State ex reL Ferrocarriles Na-
clonales Be Mexico v. Rutledge, 56
S.W.2d 28, 331 Mo. 1015, 85 A.L.R.
1375, certiorari denied Ferrocar-
riles Nacionales De Mexico v. Rut-
ledge, 53 S.Ct. 689, 289 U.S. 746,
77 L.Bd. 1492.
Tex. — Colby v. McClendon, dv.App.,
116 S.W.2d 505.
83 C.J. p 1089 note 59.
Judgment not "personal"
In action on note and open ac-
count accompanied by on attach-
ment of land of nonresident defend-
ant, Judgment ordering sale of the
attached property and appropriation
of the proceeds to payment of the
debt sued on was not erroneous as
a "personal judgment" against the
nonresident— Hall v. Bradley, 160
S.W.2d 641, 290 Ky. 120.
Where garnishment is filed against
resident garnishee, the court ac-
quires jurisdiction over the gar
nlshee and the nonresident defend-
ant to the extent of the value of the
property in the hands of the garoi-
shee, and the court may then pro
ceed to a trial of the issues, and i
court finds that the gaxnishee is <nof
indebted to defendant, power of th
ourt further to proceed against de-
endant is ended.— Colby v. McClen-
don, Tex.Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 505.
.„ Del.— Teatman v. Ward, Super.,
36 A.2d (855.
Ga. — Chastain v. Alford, 20 S.E.2d
150, 67 Ga.App. 316.
ni.— Kerr v. Swallow, 33 111. 379.
Miss.— Sellers v. Powell, 152 So. 492,
168 Miss. 682— Clark v. Louisville
& N. R. Co., 130 So. 302, 158 Miss.
287.
Tex.— Minero v. Ross, Civ.App., 138
S.W. 224.
Special appearance
Nonresident defendant's appear-
ance for sole purpose of dissolving
attachment, if sustained, defeats
court's Jurisdiction.— Adams v. Ross
Amusement Co., 161 So. 601, 182 La.
252.
12. Mass. — Richardson v. Smith, 11
Allen 134.
18. U.S.— Salmon Falls Mfg. Co. v.
Midland Tire & Rubber Co., C.C.A.
Ohio, 285 F. 214.
33 C.J. p 1089 note 60.
14. Fla.— Seaboard All-Florida Ry.
v. Leavitt, 141 So, 886, 105 Fla.
600.
Ky.— Richardson v. Webb, 185 S.W.
2d 861, 281 Ky. 201.
La. — Dickey v. Pollock, App., 183 So.
48— 'Longino v. Home Ins. Co. of
New York, 138 So. 687, 18 La.App.
680.
tf.Y.— Greater New York Export
House v. Hurtig, 267 N.Y.S. 173
2139 App.Div. 183, appeal dismissed
Greater New York Export House
v. Peirson, 196 N.E. 290, 265 N.Y
500.
S.D.— Corpus Jtols quoted in Jacobs
v. Queen Ins. Co. of America, 213
N.W. 14, 51 S.D. 249.
Tex.— Wise v. Southern Rock Islanc
Plow Co.. Civ.App., 85 S.W.2d 257
—Cheshire v. Palmer, Civ.App., 44
S.W.2d 438— Ross v. Sechrist, Civ
App., 275 S.W. 287— Lepp v. Ward
61
County Water Improvement Dist.
No. 2, Civ.App., 257 S.W. 916.
3 C.J. p 1090 note 67—34 C.J. p 5S&
notes 45, 46.
Fatal defects
(1) Failure to state the time and
lace for defendant's appearance. —
Venetsianos v. Tamasoff, 197 A. 885,
W.W.Harr., Del., 180—33 C.J. P
090 note 67 [b] (14).
(2) Making return day an impos-
sible date. — Empire Gas & Fuel Co.
'. Albright, 87 $.W.2d 1092, 126 Tex.
485—33 C.J. p 1090 note 67 [b] (1).
(3) Omission or misstatement of
date of filing of petition, as required
by statute. — Wise v. Southern Rock
Island Plow Co., Tex.Civ.App., 85 S.
W.2d 257— State v. Buckholts State
Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 193 S.W. 730.
(4) Requiring appearance on a day
subsequent to the date of the ren-
dition of the Judgment. — Moore v.
Smith, 15 S.B.2d 48, 177 Va. 621.
(5) Other fatal defects see 88 C-
J. p 1090 note 67 [bj.
15. Mich.— Rood v. McDonald, 7 N.
W.2d 95, <303 Mich. 634.
o. — Weaver v. Woodling, 272 S.W* '
373, 220 Mo.App. 970.
16. Tenru — Corpus Juris cited in
Hunter v. May, 25 S.W.2d 580, 581,
161 Tenn. 155.
17- Iowa, — Swan v. McGowan, 231
N.W. 440, 212 Iowa 631.
Minn. — Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons,
11 N.W.2d 800,. 216 Minn. 60.
N.C.— Nail v. McConnell, • 190 S.B.
210, 211 N.C. 258.
Oti. — Texas Title Guaranty Co. Y-
Mardis, 98 P.2d 598, 186 Okl. 433.
Tex. — Rhoads v. Daly General Agen-
cy, Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 461—
Weaver v. Garrietty, Civ.App., 84
S.W.2d 878.
33 C.J. P 1091 note 68—34 C.J. p 534
note 43.
As not subject to collateral attack
see infra § 422.
§24
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ticularly where defendant has waived such defects
in the process.** Although there is also authority
to the contrary,1* it has been held that the omission
of a proper seal from the process, or the use of an
improper seal, merely renders the judgment defec-
tive, and not void,20 particularly where service has
teen accepted and defendant has voluntarily ap-
peared.21
Designation of parties. Process which is radical-
ly defective with respect to the designation of the
names of the parties,** either plaintiff** or defend-
ant,24 will not support a judgment. On the other
hand, the validity of the judgment is not affected
by an inaccuracy in the designation of a party in
Opening and vacating Judgment for
defects in process see infra S 267.
•The object of "smnanons" is to
apprise defendant that plaintiff
seeks judgment against defendant,
and, when defendant is apprised of
such fact and summons does not so
far vary from the statutory form
as to deprive defendant of any sub-
stantial right the court acauires ju-
risdiction to render judgment,—
Barth v. Owens, 35 N.T.S.2d 632, 178
Misc. 628.
Errors or defects not fatal
(1) As to return day.
Ark.— United Order of Good Samar-
itans v. Brooks. 270 S.W. 955, 168
Ark. 570.
Okl.— Jones v. Standard Lumber Co.,
249 P. 343, 121 Okl. 186.
33 C.J. p 1091 note 68 [b].
(2) Erroneous direction to wrong
sheriff, who by indorsement on sum-
mons appointed sheriff to whom It
•should have been directed, and was
properly served by latter sheriff.—
Whiteker v. First Nat Bank, 231 P.
691, 32 Wyo. 288.
(3) Misnaming the county seat of
•county in which action was filed. —
Tyler Boat Works v. Schreiner, 153
P.2d 1004, 194 Okl. 601.
(4) Other errors or defects not
fatal see 33 C.J. P 1091 note 68 [a].
•Mutilation of record
Where summons was properly ls-
.sued and served and made returna-
'ble to a term subsequent to the
service, the unauthorized act of some
•one after final judgment in mutilat-
ing the record so as to indicate that
It was returnable to a prior term,
•could not deprive the court of juris-
diction or render the judgment in-
valid.—Henneke v. Strack, Mo.App.,
101 S.W.2d 74*.
13. N.C.— Moseley v. Deans, 24 S.B.
2d 630, 222 N.C. 781.
•General appearance as waiver of de-
fects In process see Appearances S
17.
Time for objections for defects in
process, and waiver or cure there-
the process if the real party intended is not misled
thereby.25 With regard to misnomer, it has been
held that if process is really served on the person
intended to be sued, although a wrong name is given
him in the writ and return, and he suffers a de-
fault, or omits to plead the misnomer in abatement
he is bound by the judgment rendered against him.26
A similar rule applies in the case of a misnomer of
plaintiff.27
h. Defective Service
A judgment bashed on a service of process which
is so defective as to amount to no service at all, has
been held void. If, however, the service, although de-
fective, Is sufficient to give the defendant notice of the
Baker, Bccles & Co., 173 S.W. 109,
162 Ky. 683, L.B.A.1917C 171— War-
rick v. McCormick, 150 S.W. 1027,
150 Ky. 800.
25. Okl. — Glenn v. Prentice, 12 P.2d
170, 158 Okl. 73.
Tex.— Gillette Motor Transport Co.
v. Whitfield, Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d
290 — Belknap Hardware & Mfg.
Co. v. Ughtfoot, Civ.App., 75 S.W.
2d 481 — Beaumont, S. Lu & W. R.
Co. v. Daniel, Civ.App., 186 S.W.
383.
Designating- defendant toy trade,
name rather than real name. —
Belknap Hardware & Mfg. Co. v.
Lightfoot, 75 S.W.2d 481.
of, see the C.J.S. title Process §
113, also 50 C.J. P 595 note 50-
p 599 -note 4.
19. Ark.— Woolford v. Dugan, 2
Ark. 131.
Tex. — Line v. Cranfall, Civ.App., 37
S.W. 184.
33 C.J. p 1090 note 67 [c].
20. Ark. — Oliver v. Routh, 184 S.W.
84'3, 123 Ark. 189— Rudd v. Thomp-
son, 22 Ark. 363.
BTa. — Benedict v. W. T. Hadlow Co.,
42 So. 239, 52 Fla. 188.
Tex.— Rhoads v. Daly General Agen-
cy, Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 461.
34 C.J. P 534 note 43 [f].
21. N.C.— Moseley v. Deans, 24 S.B.
2d 630, 222 N.C. 731.
22. Tex.— Delaware Western Constr.
Co. v. Farmers' & Merchants' Nat
Bank of Gilmer, 77 S.W. 628, 33
TeX.Civ.App. 658.
33 C.J. p 1090 note 67 [e].
Designation of parties in process
generally see the C.J.S. title Proc-
ess § 15, also 50 C.J. p 458 note 36
-p 459 note 49.
23. Fla. — Western Union Telegraph
Co. v. Hiscock, 96 So. 407, 85 Fla.
480.
N.Y.— Durst v. Ernst, 91 N.T.S. 13,
45 Misc. 627.
SS C.J. P 1090 note 67 [gL
24. Mass.— F. H. Hill & Co. v. Doe,
189 N.B. 583, 286 Mass. 187.
Tex. — Maier v. Davis, Civ.App., 72
S.W.2d 308.
W.Va.— New Eagle Gas Coal Co. v.
Burgess, 111 S.E. 508, 90 W.Va,
541.
33 C.J. P 1090 note 67 [f], [h], [13.
p 1092 note 72 [a].
Warning order
An affidavit for a warning order
in a verified petition, alleging that
defendant was a nonresident and giv-
ing his postoffice address, but not al-
leging a belief that he was then
absent from the state, does not war-
rant the issuance of a warning or-
der, and a judgment rendered there-
on is void.— Leonard v. Williams, 265
S.W. 618, 205 Ky. 218— Baker v.
62
26. Colo. — Van Buren v. Posteraro,
102 P. 1067, 45 Colo. 588, 132 Am.
S.R. 199.
111.— Feld v. Loftis, 88 N.E. 281, 240
111. 105.
Mo. — Kronski v. Missouri Pac. R.
Co., 77 Mo. 362.
Neb. — Jones v. Union Pac. R. Co.,
120 N.W. 946, 84 Neb. 121.
N.Y.— Morison v. Laing, 117 N.T.S.
416, 132 App.Div. 689.
Tex. — Adams v. Consolidated Under-
writers, 124 S.W.2d 840, 133 Tex.
26— Abilene Telephone & Tele- •
graph Co. v. Williams, 229 S.W.
847, 111 Tex, 102— McGhee v. Ro-
matka, 45 S.W. 552, 92 Tex. 38—
Maier v.- Davis, Civ.App., 72 S.W.
2d 308.
33 C.J. p 1092 note 72.
Xa future litigation, defendant may
be connected with the judgment by
proper averments, which, when made
and proved, conclude such person to
the same extent as though he had
been named and served in his true
name.
Neb.— Jones v. Union Pac. R. Co.,
120 NJW. 946, 84 Neb. 121.
x. — Adams v. Consolidated Under-
writers, 124 S.W.2d 840, 133 Tex.
26.
27. Mass.— U, S. National Bank v.
Venner, 52 N.E. 543, 172 Mass. 449.
33 C.J. p 1092 note 73.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§2*
action or proceeding, a Judgment bated thereon has been
held merely voidable.
Where the service of process on a defendant is
so defective as to amount to no service at all, a
judgment based thereon has been held to be void,28
notwithstanding he had knowledge of the suit29 A
judgment against defendant is void, in the absence
of appearance, where it is based on the service of
process on another than defendant, the person
named in the process,80 although the person served
bears the same name.31 A judgment has also been
held void where the service of process on a non-
resident, within the jurisdiction of the court, was
obtained by fraud, as where he was induced by
fraud to come within the jurisdiction of the court,
where he was .served with process.82 A judgment
is also void where process directed to the sheriff
of one county was served by the sheriff of another
county.88
A defective service, however, may be sufficient to
constitute legal notice and support a judgment.8*
If the service is merely irregular, but actually gives
defendant notice of the action or proceeding, a
judgment based thereon has been held not void,
but at most merely voidable,85 as where there is a
mere defect or irregularity as to the time of serv-
ice86 or in failing to serve a copy of the com-
plaint;87 and, moreover, the judgment is 'not even
voidable if the defect or irregularity has been
waived.88
Substituted or constructive service. In accord-
ance with the rule requiring the statutory provi-
sions relating to substituted or constructive service-
of process to be strictly applied, unless defendant
has appeared or pleaded in the case89 a judgment
has been held void where it is based on substituted
or constructive service, or service by publication,
which is not mads in strict compliance with the
essential statutory requirements relating thereto,4(>
provided, under some statutes, the failure to com-
28. Fla. — State ex reL Gore v. Chil-
lingworth, 171 So. 649, 126 Fla,
645.
Ga. — Rhodes v. Southern Flour &
Grain Co., 163 S.E. 237, 45 Ga.App.
13.
111. — Sunbeam Heating Co. v. Cham-
bers, 53 N.E.2d 294, 321 Jll.App.
629.
La. — Fullilove v. Central State Bank,
107 So. 590, 160 La. 831— Quinn v.
O'Neil, 121 So. 377, 10 La.App. 121.
Mo. — Coerver v. Crescent Lead &
Zinc Corporation, 286 S.W. 3, 315
Mo. 276.
33 C.J. p 1092 note 76—34 C.J. p 685
note 47.
Opening- or vacating Judgment for
defective service see infra § 267.
Defects of service held fatal
(1) Service by deputy sheriff be-
yond territorial confines of his own
parish.— Adams v. Citizens' Bank,
1*6 So. 107, 17 La.App. 422.
(2) Service on nonresident suitors
and witnesses in attendance on trial
and immune from process. — North-
western Casualty & Surety Co. v.
Conaway, 230 N.W. 548, 210 Iowa
126, 68 A.L.R. 1465.
(3) Other fatal defects and irreg-
ularities of service see 83 C.J. p 1093
note 77.
Judgment merely voidable
It has been held that a judgment
of a court of general jurisdiction
is merely voidable, where service
has not been obtained in the re-
quired manner, or defendant has
been denied day in court by lack of
proper service. — Lynch v. Collins,
233 P. 709, 106 Okl. 133.
29. 111. — Sunbeam Heating Co. v.
. Chambers, 53 NJS3.2d 294, 321 111.
App. 629.
Ohio.— Haley v. Hanna, 112 NJB. 149,
93 Ohio St. 49.
30. U.S.— Elliott v. Holmes, C.C.I11.,
8 F.Cas.No.4,392, 1 McLean 466.
Cal. — Adams & Co. v. Town, 3 Cal.
247.
Tex.— Barnett v. Tayler, 30 Tex. 453
— Booth v. Holmes, 2 TexUnrep.
Gas. 232.
31. Tex. — State Mortgage Corpora-
tion v. Traylor, 36 S.W.2d 440,
120 Tex. 148.
32. U.S. — Wyman v. Newhouse. C.C.
A.N.Y., 93 F.2d 313, 115 A.L.R.
460, certiorari denied 58 S.Ct 831,
303 U.S. 664, 82 LJSd. 1122.
Iowa,— Miller v. Acme Feed, 293 N.
W. 637, 228 Iowa 861.
33. Ga,— W. T. Rawleigh Co. v.
Greenway, 26 S.E.2d 458, 69 Ga.
App. 590 — Strauss v. Owens, 65 S.
E. 161, 6 Ga.App. 415.
Ky.— Foster v. Hill, 138 S.W.2d 495.
282 Ky. -327.
Tex.— Hitt v. Bell, Civ.App., Ill S.
W.2d 1164.
34. Tenn. — Hunter v. May, 25 S.W.
2d 580, 161 Texm. 155.
35. Fla. — State ex rel. Gore v. Chil-
llngworth, 171 So. 649, 126 Fla.
645 — Voorhies v. Barnsley, 156 So.
234, 116 Fla, 191— Walker v. Car-
ver, 112 So. 45, 93 Fla. 337.
Ky. — Ely v. U. S. Coal & Coke Co.,
49 S.W.2d 1021, 243 Ky. 725.
Miss. — Mclntosh v. Munson Road
Machinery Co., 145 So. 731, 167
Miss. 546.
Neb. — Campbell 'Printing Press &
Mfg. Co. v. Marder, Luse & Co.,
69 N.W. 774, 50 Neb. 283, 61 Am.
S.R. 573.
Va.— Wood v. Kane, 129 SJS. 327,
143 Va. 281.
63
Wash.— Atwood v. McGrath, 242 P.
648, 137 Wash. 400.
33 C.J. p 1092 note 76, p 1093 note-
78.
Collateral attack see infra § 422.
36. N.C.— Nail v. McConnell, 190 S.
B. 210. 211 N.C. 258.
Okl.— Goldsmith v. Owens, 68 P.2A
849, 180 Okl. 268.
Tex. — Florence v. Swails, CIvJLpp.,
85 S.W.2d 257.
33 C.J. p 1093 note 78 [a],
37. Wash. — Munch v. McLaren, 38-
P. 205, 9 Wash. 676.
34 C.J. p 534 note 44 [dj.
38. Fla. — Voorhies v. Bamsley, 15£
So. 234, 116 Fla. 191.
General appearance as waiver of de-
fects in service of process see Ap-
pearances § 17.
Waiver of defects in service of proc-
ess generally see the C.J.S. title-
Process § 113, also 50 C.J. p 59$
note 59-p 599 note 11.
39. Fla.— McGee v. McGee, 22 So.2d.
788 — United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America v.
Graves lav. Co., 15 So.2d 196, 153:
Fla. 529.
Kan. — Union Central Life Ins. Co. v.
Irrigation Loan & Trust Co., 42"
P.2d 566, 141 Kan. 675.
40. U.S. — Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Cor-
poration v. Warfield Natural Gas.
Co., <XC.A.Ky., 137 F.2d 871, cer-
tiorari denied 64 S.Ct. 431, 320 U.
S. 800, 88 L.Ed 483, rehearing de-
nied 64 S.Ct. 634, 321 U.S. 803;.
88 L.Ed. 1089.
Fla.— >McGee v. McGee, 22 So.2d 78&
— United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America v..
Graves Inv. Co., 15 So.2d 196, 1.5$
Fla. 529— Klinger v. Milton Hold-
ing Co., 186 So. 526, 136 Fla. 50—
24
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ply with the statute appears on the face of the rec-
ord or judgment roll.41 A judgment based on serv-
ice by publication has been held void where the
requirements of the statute were not complied with,
with respect to the time of publication of the proc-
ess,42 or with respect to the affidavit for the or-
der of publication,48 or with respect to posting or
mailing a copy of the summons, complaint, and or-
der to defendant.44 However, the mere fact that
the affidavit is defective in the method of stating
the facts, or in the degree of proof, has been held
to make a judgment based thereon merely void-
able.45
Stern v. Raymond, 116 So. $. 95
Fla, 410.
111.— Martin V. Schillo, 60 N.E.2d 392,
389 111. 607, certiorarl denied 65
S.Ct 1572, 325 U.S. 880, 89 L.Ed.
1996.
Kan. — Union Central Life Ins. Co. v.
Irrigation Loan & Trust Co., 42 P.
2d 566, 141 Kan. 675.
La.— Richardson v. Trustees' Loan &
Guaranty Co., 132 So. (387, 15 La.
App. 645.
Mo. — Davison v. Arne, 155 S.W.2d
155, 348 Mo. 790— Dent v. Invest-
ors* Sec. Ass'n, 254 S.W. 1080, 300
Mo. 552— Williams v. Luecke, App.,
152 S.W,2d 991— Haake v. Union
Bank & Trust Co., App., 54 S.W.
2d 459.
N.C.— Guerin v. Guerin, 181 S.E. 274,
208 N.C. 457.
Okl.— Locke v. Gilbert, 271 P. 247,
133 Okl. 93— Dow v. Cowley-Frye
Lumber Co., 247 P. 1109, 119 Okl.
60.
Or. — Okanogan State Bank of River-
side, Wash. v. Thompson, 211 P.
933, 106 Or. 447.
Tex.— Smith v. Commercial Credit
Corp., Civ.App., 187 S.W.2d 360,
reversed on other grounds Com-
mercial Credit Corp. v. Smith, 187
S.W.2d 363, 143 Tex. 612— Perez
v. B. P. Lipscomb & Co., Civ.App.
267 S.W. 748.
33 C.J. p 1093 note 80.
Strict compliance with statute as
to substituted service or service
by publication generally see the
C.J.S. title Process §§ 43, 55, also
50 C.J. p 490 note 77-p 491 note
81, p 497 note 17-p 498 note 28.
Tender wcoastita,tional statute
Service of summons on alleged
resident agent of nonresident indi-
vidual would not warrant rendition
of judgment against the individual
as such, where the statute author-
izing service on agent of nonresi-
dent individuals engaged to business
within the state is unconstitutional.
-Clones v. Fuller, 134 S.W.2d 240,
280 Ky. 671.
Defects held fatal
(1) Service by publication when
defendants were residents of state
at date of service and their resi-
dence known to plaintiff. — 'Perez v.
B. P. Lipscomb & Co., Tex.Civ.App.,
267 S.W. 748.
(2) Service by publication tinder
order not based on affidavit for at-
tachment, stating- that defendant
was nonresident* but solely on alle-
gation or finding that she could not
be summoned. — Haake v. Union Bank
& Trust Co., MO.APP., 54 S.W.2d
459.
(3) Leaving: summons at place
which was not defendant's last and
usual place o€ abode.— P. H. Hill
Co. v. Doe, 1-89 N.B. 588, 286 Mass.
187.
(4) Leaving citation at house in
which nonresident defendant had
resided, but which was no longer
his domicile.— Williams & Miller v.
Jones, La.App., 180 So. 140.
(5) Service by mail. — Estok v. Bs-
tok, 157 A. 356, 102 Pa.Super, 604—
Skrynski v. Zeroka, 98 PaJSuper. 469.
(6) Service on one not living at
defendant's domicile. — Richardson v.
Trustees1 Loan & Guaranty Co., 132
So. 387, 15 La.App. 645.
(7) Service on director of corpo-
ration Instead of on person named
in statute. — State v. District Court
of Seventh Judicial Dist, in and for
Mineral County, 273 P. 659, 51 Nev.
206, followed in 273 P. 661, 51 Nev.
214, and rehearing- denied 275 P. 1,
51 Nev. 3SO.
(8) Service on agent or attorney
of a nonresident defendant
Ala. — Woodfln v. Curry, 153 So. 620,
228 Ala. 436.
Ky.— -Jones v. Puller, 184 S.W.2d 240,
280 Ky. 671.
S.C. — Matheson v. McCormac, 195 S.
B. 122, 186 S.C. 93. •
(9) Other defects see 33 C.J. p
1093 note 80 [a].
41. U.S.— Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Cor-
poration v. Warfleld Natural Gas
Co., CXJJLKy., 137 P.2d 871, cer-
tiorari denied 64 'S.Ct 431, 320 U.
S. 800, 88 L.Ed. 483, rehearing de-
nied 64 S.Ot 634, 321 U.S. 803,
88 L.Ed. 1089.
Okl.— Locke v. Gilbert, 271 P. 247.
133 Okl. 93.
42. Ariz.— Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland v.. Meldrum, 50 P.2d 570,
46 Ariz. 295.
Tex.— Mitchell v. Reitz, Civ.App., 269
S.W. 279.
43. U.S.— Butler v. McKey, C.OA.
CaL, 138 P.2d 373, certiorari de-
nied 64 S.Ct 636. 321 U.S. 780,
88 L.Ed. 1073.
Colo. — Federal Farm Mortg. Corpo-
ration v. Schmidt, 126 P.2d 1086.
109 Colo. 467.
Okl.— Robins y. Lincoln Terrace
Christian Church, 75 *P.2d 874. 181
64
Okl. 615 — Morgan v. Stevens, 22S
P. 365, 101 Okl. 116.
Or. — Laughlin v. Hughes, 89 P.2d
568, 161 Or. 295.
S.C.— Ray v. Pilot Fire Ins. Co.. 121
S.B. 779, 128 S.C. 323.
34 C.J. p 536 note 61.
Validity of Judgment rendered on
citation by publication depends, not
on fact that an affidavit in proper
form was filed, but rather on truth
of grounds set up as basis for Is-
suance and service of citation by
publication. — Smith v. Commercial
Credit Corp., Civ.App., 187 S.W.2d
360, reversed on other grounds Com-
mercial Credit Corp. v. Smith, 187 S.
W.2d 363, 143 Tex. 612.
Affidavits held fatally defective
(1) Affidavit based on hearsay
that defendant cannot be found
within state or conceals himself to
avoid service of summons. — Butler
v. McKey, C.C.A.CaL, 138 F.2d 373,
certiorari denied 64 S.Ct 636. 921
U.'S. 780, 88 L.Bd. 1073.
(2) Other affidavits see 33 OJ. p
1093 note 80 [b].
44. N.Y. — B. Berman, Inc. v. Amer-
ican Fruit Distributing Co., 186
N.T.S. 376, 114 Misc. 345,
33 C.J. p 14)93 note 80 Cc].
45. U.S. — Thompson v. Thompson,
App-D.C., 33 S.Ct 129, 226 U.S. 551.
57 L.Ed. 347.
Neb.— Atkins v. Atkins, 2 N.W. 466,
9 Neb. 191.
N.Y.— Smith v. R. B. t Bldg. Cor-
poration, 215 N.T.S. 1, 126 MlfiKS.
826.
Okl.— Frost v. Bavis, 79 P.2d 800,
182 Okl. 593. .
Utah.— Salt Lake City v. Salt Lake
Inv. Co., 134 P. 603, 43 Utah 181.
33 C.J. P 1091 note 68 [i], p 1093
note 80 [b] (9)— 34 C.J. p 536
notes 53, 59.
Improvidently made
The fact that (affidavit supporting
request for issuance of citation by
publication on ground that defend-
ant's residence was unknown had
been improvidently made, if estab-
lished, would not render Judgment
in the proceedings void. — Commer-
cial Credit Corp. v. Smith, 187 S.W.
2d 863, 143 Tex. &L2.
"WHeseabouts" Instead of "resi-
dence"
The use of the word "where-
abouts" in an affidavit for service J>y
publication which states that th,e
"whereabouts" of defendant U TO-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 26
§ 25. Return and Proof of Service
A valid judgment ordinarfty may fee rendered only
where due service of process is shown by a return or
other proof.
Although the validity of a judgment rests on the
service of process rather than on the return, which
is simply evidence in respect of the process,46 a
proper return, showing that process has been duly
served, is ordinarily necessary in order that a valid
judgment may be rendered.47 Accordingly a judg-
ment has been held void where the return or other
proof is so faulty or defective as not to show a le-
gal service of process,48 although mere irregulari-
ties in the return or proof will not vitiate the judg-
ment.49 If the nonservice of process appears on
the face of the papers or is discernible from an in-
spection of the record, the judgment may be treated
as a nullity,50 and it has been held that the judgment
is void whether such lack of jurisdiction appears
on the face of the record or is shown aliunde.51
§ 26. Appearance
A judgment bas?d on the voluntary general appear-
ance by or on behalf of the defendant is valid.
A voluntary general appearance in an action is
a. waiver of a want of process, or of any defects
in the process or its service, or return, and gives
the court full jurisdiction over his person, as dis-
cussed in Appearances § 17, and accordingly, al-
though a defendant has not received any notice, or
proper process or service thereof, a judgment in
personam against him is valid and binding if a
general appearance has been entered by him or on
his behalf.52 However, a judgment in personam
known, Instead of the word "resi-
dence," which is used in the statute,
is a mere irregularity which will not
render an attachment judgment void.
— Fisher 'v. Jordan, C.C.A.Tex., 116 F.
2d 183, certiorari denied Jordan v.
Fisher, 61 S.Ct. 734, 312 U.S. 697, 85
L.Bd. 1132.
46. La. — Adler v. Board of Levee
Com'rs of Orleans Levee Dist., 123
So. 605, 168 La, 877— Dickey v.
Pollock, App.. 183 So. 48.
"The citation itself is the im-
portant legal fact upon which the
validity of the judgment rests, while
the return is simply evidence in re-
spect to that fact. The citation in
a case must not be confounded with
the sheriff's return, which recites
his own actions in the matter of the
service thereof. The citation may
be good, though the return for some
reason be irregular; while the re-
turn may be perfect in its recitals,
yet the citation be null." — Adler v.
Board of Levee Com'rs of Orleans
Levee Dist., 123 So. 605, 606, 168 La.
877.
47. Chau— Elliott v. Porch, 200 S.E.
ISO, 59 Ga.App. 181— Benton v.
Maddox, 192 S.E. 316, 56 Ga.App.
132.
Miss. — Ex parte Latham, 136 So. 625,
1C1 Miss. 243.
Tex. — Wagner v. Urban, Civ.App.,
170 S.W.2d 270.
33 C.J. p 1094 note 83.
In absence of return of service,
there is nothing to show, in support
of Judgment, that court had juris-
diction, since court should not pro-
ceed in absence of service. — Benton
v. Maddox, 192 S.E. 316, £6 Ga.App.
132.
Judgment is valid on f ace, where
return of service is made in manner
required by law. — Hanna v. Allen,
279 P. 1098, 153 Wash. 485.
48. Colo. — Gibbs v. Slevin, 212 P.
826. 72 Colo. 690.
Tex. — Remington-Rand Business
Service v. Angelo Printing Co.,
Civ.App., 31 S.W.2d 1098.
Wash. — Title & Trust Co. v. Colum-
bia Basin Land Co., 238 P. 992,
136 Wash. 63.
33 C.J. p 1094 note 84.
As invalidating default judgment
see infra § 192.
A deputy sheriff's individual re-
turn to a writ of summons directed
to his superior, is void, and a judg-
ment predicated thereon is likewise
null and void. — Stuckert v. Thomp-
son, 164 S.W. 692, 181 Mo.App. 518.
Inability to find citation
Proof that attorney was unable
to find original citation in clerk's of-
fice insufficiently supported allega-
tion that judgment was void for
want of legal citation. — Thompson-
Ritchie Grocery Co. v. Gary, 135 So.
707, 17 La.App. 270.
Publication
Nonresident defendants, whose
post office addresses were not shown
by proof of publication of notices
to them, were not in court, which
had no power to render judgment
or apply testimony against them. —
Sellers v. Powell, 152 So. 492, 168
Miss. 682.
Substituted service
A return of process disclosing
substituted service is insufficient to
confer jurisdiction over person of
defendant unless return affirmative-
ly shows, under strict construction
and unaided by reference to statute,
compliance with all essential re-
quirements of statute authorizing
such service. *
Mo.— Crabtree v. ^2tna Life Ins. Co.,
Ill S.W.2d 103, 341 Mo. 1173—
State ex rel. Adler v. Ossing, 79
S.W.2d 255, SS6 Mo. 391.
Va.— Washburn v. Angle Hardware
Co., 132 S.E. 810, 144 Va. 508.
49. Fla. — Walker v. Carver, 112 So.
45, 93 Via. 337.
65
Ky. — Commonwealth ex rel. Love v.
Reynolds, 146 S.W.2d 41, 284 Ky.
809.
La. — Adler v. Board of Levee Com'rs
of Orleans Levee Dist., 123 So. 605,
168 La. 877.
Mo. — McEwen v. Sterling State
Bank, 5 S.W,2d 702, 222 Mo.App.
660.
Ohio. — Paulin v. Sparrow, 110 N.E.
528, 91 Ohio St. 279.
Pa.— Podol v. Shevlin, 130 A. 264,
284 Pa. 32 — Wood v. Kuhn, Com.
PI., 22 Brie Co. 236.
33 C.J. p 1095 note 85.
A ruling- of the court that the
service was valid, even though the
ruling was erroneous, does not show
that the court was without jurisdic-
tion to proceed since it did not ap-
pear that service was not waived. —
Pratt v. Rosa Jarmulowsky Co., 170
S.E. 365, 177 Ga. 522.
Irregularities not affecting- judg-
ment
(1) Failure to file affidavit of
mailing notice to defendant served
by publication, prior to rendition of
Judgment. — Young v. Campbell. 16
P.2d 65, 160 Okl. 265.
(2) Failure to file proof of serv-
ice on defendant outside state until
entry of judgment — Winter v. Win-
ter, 175 N.E. 533. 256 N.T. 113. -
(3) Failure to show competency
of process server. — State v. Fergus
County Tenth Judicial Dist. Ct., 179
P. 831, 55 Mont. 602.
(4) Other irregularities see 33 C.
J. p 1091 note 68 [f].
50. N.C.— Dunn v. Wilson, 187 S.E.
802, 210 N.C. 493— Graves v. Relds-
ville Lodge No. 2128, 109 S.E. 29.
182 N.C. 530.
51. Tex. — Olton State Bank v. How-
ell, Civ.App., 105 S.W.2d 2*7.
52. U.S. — In re Gayle, C.C.A.Canal
Zone, 1*36 F.2d 973, petition dis-
missed 64 S.C. 157, 320 U.S. 806,
88 L-Ed. 4*7.
26
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
against defendant is not validated by his special ap-
pearance for the purpose of objecting to the juris-
diction of the court by taking advantage of a fail-
ure of notice or defective service,63 or for some
other special purpose.54
By attorney. An appearance for defendant by
his authorized attorney is sufficient to support a
judgment against defendant.65 If, however, the
appearance was in fact unauthorized, a judgment
based thereon has been held voidable,56 and accord-
ing to some decisions the judgment is wholly void57
and subject to collateral attack, as discussed infra
§ 424. It has been held that a judgment rendered
on the appearance of an attorney, who has acted
without authority, is regular and valid,58 the sole
remedy being an action for damages against the
attorney, as discussed in Attorney and Client § 147.
If there was due service of process sufficient to
support the judgment, as discussed supra § 24, the
validity of the judgment is not affected by lack of
authority of the attorney who appeared and made
defense.5**
Appearance by plaintiff. As a rule, if plaintiff
fails or refuses to appear and present his case, the
court may dismiss the action for want of prosecu-
tion, as explained in Dismissal and Nonsuit § 65 a,
Ala. — Morrison v. Covington, 100 So.
124, 211 Ala. 181.
Ariz. — Lore v. Citizens Bank of Win-
slow, 75 P.2d 371, 51 Ariz. 191—
Blair v. Blair, 62 P.2d 1821, 48
Ariz. 501.
Cal.— -Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246, 203
Cat 306.
Ga.— Cherry v. McCutchen, 23 S.E.2d
587, 68 Ga.App. 682.
Hawaii. — Kim Poo Kum v. Sugi-
yama, 33 Hawaii 545.
Ind. — -Montgomery v. .Marks, 46 N.E.
2d 912, 221 Ind. 223 — Celi-na Mut
Casualty Co. v. Baldridge, 12 N.E.
2d 258, 213 Ind. 198.
Ky.-^Tones v. Fuller, 134 'S.W.2d 240,
280 'Ky. 671 — Black v. Elkhorn
Coal Corporation, 26 iS.W.2d 481.
233 Ky. 588.
La.— Nolan v. Schultze, 126 So. 513,
169 La. 1022— Gferfin v. Brown, 107
So. 576, 160 La. 790.
Md. — Piedmont-Mt. Airy Guano Co.
of Baltimore v. Merritt, 140 A. 62,
154 Md. 226.
Mont. — Novack v. Pericich, 300 P.
240, 90 Mont. 91.
N.Y. — Bauman Rubber Co. v. Karl
Light & Sons, 244 N.Y.S. 448, 137
Misc. 258.
N.C.— Powell v. Turpin, 29 S.E.2d
26, 224 N.C, 67— City of Monroe
v. Niven, 20 S.E.2d '311, 221 N.C.
362— Casey v. Barker, 14 S.E.2d
429, 219 N.C. 465— Dunn v. Wilson,
187 S.E. 802, 210 N.C. 493— Hood
v. Holding, 171 S.E. 633, 205 N.C.
451.
N.D.— Baird v. Ellison, 293 N.W.
794, 70 NJD. 261.
Okl. — Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v.
Excise Board of Oklahoma County,
33 P.2d 1081, 168 Okl. 428— Protest
of Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.,
2 P.2d 935, 161 Okl. 129— Skipper
v. Baer, 277 -P. 930, 136 Okl. 286.
Or. — (Mt. Vernon Nat. Bank v, Morse,
264 P. 439, 128 Or. 64.
Pa.— In re Komara's Estate, 166 A.
577, 311 Pa. 135 — In re Gallagher's
Estate, 167 A. 476, 109 Pa. Super.
304.
R.I. — Corpus Juris died la 'Sahagian
v. Sahagian, 137 A, 221, 222, 48
R.I. 267. i
Tenn. — Dicfcson v. Simpson, 113 S.W.
2d 1190, 172 Tenn. 680, 116 A.L.R.
'380 — Commerce Union Bank v.
' Sharber, 100 S.W.2d 243, 20 Tenn.
App. 451.
Tex.— Pure Oil Co. v. Reece, 78 S.W.
2d 932, 124 Tex. 476— State Mortg.
Corporation v. Traylor, 36 S.W.2d
440, 120 Tex. 148 — Levy v. Roper,
256 S.W. 251, =113 Tex. 356— Eaton
v. Husted, Civ.App., 163 S.W.2d
439, affirmed 172 S.W.2d 493, 141
Tex. 349— Stone v. Miller, Civ.App.,
134 S.W.2d 862, error dismissed,
judgment correct — Goodman v.
Mayer, Civ.App., 105 'S.W^d 281,
reversed on other grounds 128 S.
W.2d 1156, 1*33 Tex. 319— Coker v.
Logan, Civ.App., 101 S.W.2d 284,
error refused — Glass v. Kottwitz,
Civ.App., 297 S.W. 573.
Va. — Lockard v. Whitenack, 144 S.
E. 606, 151 Va. 143— Beck v. Sem-
ones' Adm'r, 134 S.E. 677, 145 Va.
429.
Wis.— Saric v. Brlos, 19 N.W.2d 903,
247 Wis. 400.
33 C.J. p 1095 note 89—34 C.J. p 533
note 40.
Appearance as validating judgment:
Against nonresident see supra §
24 e.
In action begun by:
Attachment or garnishment see
supra § 24 f.
Substituted or constructive serv-
ice see supra § 24 c.
Appearance after judgment
Where a judgment in rem has been
rendered without the appearance of
defendant, his appearance after
judgment for the purpose of moving
for a new trial does not render the
judgment a personal one. — Mayfleld
v. Bennett, 48 Iowa 194.
53. Md. — Ortman v. Coane, 31 A.2d
320, 181 Md. 596, 145 A.L.R. 1388.
Wash. — State v. Plummer, 226 P.
273, 130 Wash. 135.
33 C.J. p 1095 note 93.
54. Or. — Cram v, Tippery, 155 P.2d
558.
litre physical presence by a party
when a judgment is rendered against
him does not make the judgment
66
binding on him, if he had no notice
or opportunity to be heard. — Elliott
v. Adams, 160 S.E. 3*36, 173 Ga. 312.
55. Mich. — Hempel v. Bay Circuit
Judge, 193 N.W. 281, 222 Mich.
553.
N.C.— Hood v. Holdingf, 171 S.E. 633,
205 N.C. 451.
33 C.J. p 1096 note 94.
Presumption of authority to appear
see Attorney and Client § 73 a.
Where defendants' attorney was
in open court when plaintiff request-
ed leave to amend petition to state
new cause of action, notwithstand-
ing defendants subsequently with-
drew their answer and were not cit-
ed on filing of amended petition,
court had jurisdiction to render
judgment against them thereon. —
Phillips v. The Maccabees, Tex.Civ.
App., 50 S.W.2d 478.
56. N.T.— Wiley v. Moses, 42 N.T.S.
2d 4. 266 App.Div. 801, reargument
and appeal denied In re Less* Es-
tate, 44 N.T.S.2d 686, 266 App.Div.
968.
33 C.J. p 1096 note 95.
Unauthorized appearance as ground
for:
Equitable relief see infra § 354.
Opening and vacating see infra §
267.
57. N.D.— Taylor v. Oulie, 212 N.W.
Wl. 55 N.D. 253.
Okl.— ^Street v. Dexter, 77 P.2d 707,
182 Okl. 360— Hatfield v. Lewis,
236 P. 611, 110 Okl. 98.
Tex.-^Stack v. Ellis, Civ.App., 291
S.W. 919.
33 C.J. p 1096 note 97.
58. Miss.— Shirling v. Scites, 41
Miss. 644.
33 C.J. p 1096 note 2.
59. N.C.— Hatcher v. Faison, 55 S.E.
284, 145 N.C. 364.
33 C.J. p 1096 note 1.
Neither void nor voidable
Appearance by an unemployed at-
torney does not make a judgment
void or -voidable, where the case
would otherwise go to judgment
since such attorney has no power to
waive any rights. — Lockard v.
Whitenack, 144 S.K 606, 151 Va. 143.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 27
but it can render, no judgment against plaintiff60
unless defendant has filed a cross action or request,
ed affirmative relief.61 On the other hand, if plain-
tiff appears and answers a cross action, a judgment
may be entered thereon, although defendant did not
serve him with notice of the cross action,62
C. PARTIES
§ 27. In General
Parties whose rights are determined are essential to
a Judgment.
An essential element, implied in all the definitions
of a judgment which have been given, is that there
must be parties whose rights are determined by the
adjudication.6* A valid judgment cannot be ren-
dered where there is a want of necessary parties,64
and a court cannot properly adjudicate matters in-
volved in a suit when necessary and indispensable
parties to the proceedings are not before it65 The
absence of persons necessary to a complete settle-
ment of the entire controversy, however, will not
prevent the rendition of a valid judgment where
their interests are so separable that a judgment may
be rendered between the parties before the court
without affecting the rights of persons who are not
parties.66 A judgment which is a mere negation of
plaintiff's asserted claim is not erroneous for want
of necessary parties.67
In the case of ex parte proceedings there are par-
ties on only one side, as discussed in Ex 32 CJ.S.
p 1145 note 75-p 1146 note 80. In the case of pro-
ceedings in rem, the parties on one side, at least,
consist merely in the personification of a res, but the
determinations in this class of cases are nevertheless
judgments, as considered infra § 907.
To enable a judgment to be rendered the litigants
must have the capacity to stand in judgment68 The
60. Tex.— Parr v. Chittim, Com.
App., 231 S.W. 1079— Dalton T.
Davis, Civ.App., 294 S.W. 1115,
reversed on other grounds, Com.
App, 1 S.W.2d 571— -Scarborough
v. Bradley, Civ.App., 256 S.W. 349.
61* Tex.— Wadell Connally Hard-
ware Co. v. Brooks, Civ.App.t 275
S.W. 168.
62. Tex. — Hall v. Morton, Civ.App.,
39 S.W.2d 903, error refused.
63. Kan.— Corpus Juris quoted in
City of Independence v. Hinde-
nach, 61 P.2d 124, 129, 144 Kan.
414.
M0nt— ^State v. District Court of
Fifteenth. Judicial Dist. in and for
Musselshell County, 300 P. 235, 89
Mont 5-31, 82 A.L.R. 1158.
33 C.J. P 1105 note 45.
Amendment of judgment as to par-
ties see infra § 244.
Conformity to:
Pleadings and proofs as to parties
see infra § 51.
Verdict or findings as to parties
see infra § 56.
Designation of parties see infra 5
75. t .
Parties to judgment by or against
executor or administrator see Ex-
ecutors and Administrators § 793.
Advewary proceedings required
Where real party in interest is
both plaintiff and defendant, no Is-
sue is presented and decree or judg-
ment based on such action is null
and void.— O'Donnell v. U. S., C.C.A,
Cal., 91 F.2d 14, reversed on other
grounds U. S. v. O'Donnell, 58 S.Ct
708, 303 U.S. 501, 82 Ii.Ed. 980.
64. Tex. — Belt v. Texas Co., Civ,
App., 175 S.W.2d 622, error refused
— Beeier r. Loock, Civ-App^ 135
S.W.2d 644, error dismissed— Gen- |
era! Exchange Ins. Corporation v.
Collins, Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 127.
xreoessary parties
Grantee's heirs are necessary par-
ties to enable court to adjudicate
whether paper, in form a deed, is
an absolute conveyance, or only a
power of attorney.— Wingo v. Par-
ker, 19 S.C. 9.
65. Fla. — Fain v. Adams, 121 So.
562, 97 Fla. 517.
111.— Hansen v. Swartz, 178 N.E. 246,
345 111. 609.
Mass.— Dietz v. New Tork Life Ins.
Co., 191 N.E. 875, 287 Mass. 398.
N.Y.— U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
v. Triborough Bridge Authority,
48 N.T.S.2d 16, affirmed 59 N.Y.S.
2d 291, 269 App.Div. 978, motion
granted 59 N.Y.S.2d 627, 270 App.
Div. 754.
N.D.— Underwood State Bank v.
Weber, 193 N.W. 602, 49 N.D. 814.
W.Va.— McDonald v. Bennett, 152 S.
E. 533, 108 W.Va. 666.
Wis. — Riedel -v. Preston, 246 N.W.
569, 211 Wis. 149.
Proper procedure
The court should require the ab-
sent persons to be made parties to
the proceeding or dismiss it with-
out prejudice.— White v. Walker, 10
S.W.2d 1071, 226 Ky. 326.
Sum held by stranger
The district court erred In includ-
ing in amount of money judgment
sum shown by parties' stipulation to
be held la Judgment debtor's name
by corporation not party to suit
wherein judgment was rendered. —
CyMeara v. Williams, Tex.Civ.App,,
137 S.W.2d 66, error dismissed, Judg-
ment correct.
67
66. Cal. — Bank of California Nat.
Ass'n v. Superior Court in and for
City and County of San Francisco,
106 P.2d 879, 16 Cal.2d 516.
Tex.— State Mortg. Corporation v.
Garden, Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d 212.
Person held not a necessary party
JSTonresidence of party claiming
interest did not impair validity of
decree approving release of rights
in estate, nonresidents not being
necessary parties to decision of
question. — Denny v. Searles, 148 S.E.
484, 150 Va. 701.
67. Proceeding to terminate rights
under deed
A judgment in an administrator's
suit to terminate defendant's rights
under a deed from his Intestate is
not erroneous for want of necessary
parties because intestate's heirs
were not parties to the suit, where
it is a mere negation of plaintiff's
asserted claim. — Jones v. Gibbs, 130
S.W.2d 265, 133 Tex. 627, motion
overruled T31 S.W.2d 957, 133 Tex.
627.
68. La.— Roe v. Caldwell, 70 So.
548, 138 La. 652— Miles v. Recla-
mation Oil Producing Ass'n, 3 La.
App. 746.
nprisonment of defendant pending
civil suit
Where, pending a civil cause, de-
fendant is arrested and confined in
jail by virtue of a warrant issued
for a criminal offense at the in-
stance of a third person not in col-
lusion with, or instigated by, plain-
tiff, plaintiff is entitled to proceed
with his cause to judgment, and
such judgment will not be set aside
as irregular. — Peterson v. C. A. Mar-
§ 28
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
rules governing judgments with respect to persons
under a disability are discussed in Husband and
Wife §§ 447-457, Infants §§ 120-124, and Insane
Persons § 151. Also the rules applicable to judg-
ments relative to persons whose personality is or
has been suspended for juristic purposes are con-
sidered in titles wherein the law relative to such
persons is treated, such as Bankruptcy §§ 489-491,
Convicts § 7, Insolvency § 17 a (2), and Slaves §
7, also 58 CJ. p 758 note 59; and in titles dis-
cussing particular kinds or classes of actions and
proceedings are considered the rules particularly ap-
plicable to parties to judgments or decrees in such
actions or proceedings.
§ 28. Judgment for or against One Not a Par-
ty
A Judgment can be rendered only for or against a
party to the action or proceeding and not for or agafnct
one not a party: the rights and liabilities of persons not
parties cannot be adjudicated.
In general a judgment can be taken only for or
against a party to the action or proceeding.^ It
cannot properly be rendered for or against one who
is not a party thereto,70 or against one who is not
tin Furniture Co., 86 S.B. 1099, 144
Ga. 316.
69. Mont. — Moore v. Capital Gas
Corp., 158 P.2d 302.
Jurisdiction In personam as essen-
tial to validity of judgment see
supra § 19.
Service or process or appearance as
essential to validity of judgment
see supra §§ 23, 26.
70. U.S. — Southwell v. Robertson,
D.CPa,, 27 F.Supp. 944.
Ark.— Bryan v. Akers, 7 S.W.2d 32$,
177 Ark. 681, 58 A.L.R. 1124.
Cal. — Hutchinson v. California Trust
Co., Ill P.2d 401, 43 Cal.App.2d
571— Lloyd v. Los Angeles County,
107 P.2d .622, 41 Cal.App.2d 808—
Overell v. Overell, 64 P.2d 483, 18
Cal.App.2d 499— Nordin v. Eagle
Rock State Bank, App., 49 P.2d
336— McDonald v. Richards, 248 P.
1049, 79 CaLApp. 1.
Colo. — J. I. Case Threshing Mach.
Co. v. Packer, 254 P. 779, 81 Colo.
195.
Ga. — Webb & Martin v. Anderson-
McGriff Hardware Co., 8 S.E.2d
882, 188 Ga. 291.
111.— Schrei v. Van Alyea, 247 HL
App. 440.
Ind.— Kist v. Coughlin, 57 N.E.2d
586, 222 Ind. 639.
Ky.— City of Hazard v. Gay, 113 S.
W.2d 467, 271 Ky. 818— Farmers'
Nat. Bank v. Jones, 28 S.W.2d 787,
234 Ky. 591, 70 A.L.R. 335— Ford
v. Consolidated Grocery Co., 17
S.W.2d 448, 229 Ky. 510.
La. — Succession of Arnold, 152 So.
•322, 178 La. 658— Erskine v. Gard-
iner, 110 So. 97, 162 La, 83.
Mich.— Smith v. Switzer, 287 N.W.
416, 290 Mich. 158.
Neb.— Clark v. Clark, 297 N.W. 661,
139 Neb. 446— Southern Nebraska
Power Co. v. Village of Deshler,
264 N.W. 462, 130 Neb. 133.
N.Y.— Clark v. Seligman, 296 N.T.S.
98, 163 Misc. 533— Quinn v. Er-
showsky, 245 N.T.S. 398, 138 Misc.
15.
Ohio. — Eac parte Eastman, 155 N.E.
578, 23 Ohio App. 2T3.
Or* — Niedermeyer, Inc., v. Fehl, 83
P.2d 960, 148 Or. 16, followed In
Niedermeyer, Inc. v. Pacific Record
Pub. Co., 33 P.2d 966, 147 Or. 528,
and motion denied Niedermeyer,
Inc., v. Fehl, 35 P.2d 477, 148 Or.
16.
Pa. — In re McGuigan's Estate, 37 A.
2d 717, 349 Pa. 581— Chiswell v.
Campbell, 150 A. 90, 300 Pa, 68.
R.I.— Lawton v. Fox, 133 A. 348, 47
R.I. 359.
Tenn. — American Nat. Bank v. Brad-
ford, App., 188 S.W.2d 971.
Tex. — Thomas v. Mullins, Civ.App.,
127 S.W.2d 559, reversed on other
grounds Mullins v. Thomas, 150 S.
W.2d 83, 136 Tex 215— Edwards
v. Hatch, Civ.App., 106 S.W.2d 741
—Baker v. Reed, Civ.Ap&., 54 S.W.
2d 214 — Underwood v. Jefferson
Bank & Trust Co., Civ.App., 35 S.
W.2d 766 — Cunningham v. Koons,
Civ.App., 33 S.W.2d 761 — Jessen v.
Scott, Civ.App., 14 S.W.2d 290—
Cook v. Liberty Pipe Line Co.,
Civ.App., 281 S.W. 221— Moses v.
Chapman, Civ.App., 280 S.W. 911
— Tomerlin v. Krause, Civ.App.,
278 S.W. 501.
W.Va.— Milam v. Settle, 32 S.E.?d
269.
33 C.J. p 1106 note 58.
Injunction:
In federal court as binding on
parties defendant and those rep-
resented by them or subject to
their control or in privity with
them see Federal Courts § 144 d.
Not granted against persons not
parties to suit see Injunctions §
214.
Judgment in:
Favor of partner not party to ac-
tion see the C.J.S. title Partner-
ship § 235, also 47 C.J. p 1011
note 15.
Replevin not proper against one
not party to action see the C.
J.S. title Replevin S 242, also 54
C.J. p 588 note 25.
Necessity that judgment correspond
to pleadings with respect to par-
ties see infra § 51.
Relief against person not party not
granted in mandamus proceeding
see the C.J.S. title Mandamus §
341, also 38 C.J. p 926 note 12.
68
Opportunity to "be heard
(1) Person must have opportunity
of being heard before court can ren-
der judgment against him.
111. — Hansen v. Swartz, 178 N.E.
246, 345 111. 609.
Mont— Mitchell v. Banking Corpo-
ration of Montana, 22 P.2d 155,
94 Mont 183.
(2) Notice and opportunity to be
heard before being concluded by
judgment as essential to due proc-
ess of law see Constitutional Law
§§ 569 c (2), 619, 322.
Unauthorized proceeding
(1) Judgment is void in action in-
stituted in plaintiff's name by a
stranger without authority.
U.S. — Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Isa-
bel, CC.A.OkL, 129 F.2d 111.
Okl.— Steen v. Williams, 12 P.2d 888,
158 OkL 147.
(2) Judgment against alleged
ward on cross petition in proceeding
brought by alleged guardian acting
under wholly void court order is
erroneous. — Ruckert v. Moore, 295 S.
W. 794, 317 Mo. 228.
(3) Other cases see 33 C.J. p 1106
note 58 [e],
Judgment for plaintiff as trustee
for one not a 'party to the action is
erroneous. — Rush v. Curtiss-Wright
Export Corporation, 31 N.T.S,2d 550,
263 App.Div. 69, appeal denied 32
N.Y.S.2d 1016, 263 App.Div. 868.
motion denied 41 N.B.2d 173, 287
N.Y. 849.
Xodividual sued in representative
In suit against state superintend-
ent of insurance, to recover a fund
in his possession officially, in which
the superintendent as an individual
defendant was stricken out, the ju**.
risdiction of the court is limited to
the res, and it has no power to
charge defendant with interest be-
yond what he actually received. —
Porter v. Beha, D.C.N.Y., 8 F.2d 65,
affirmed, C.C.A., 12 F.2d 513.
Unknown or wuuuned parties
Law court cannot enter judgment
for unknown and unnamed parties,
nor has it ancillary jurisdiction to
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 28
subject to the jurisdiction of the court.71 A judg-
ment so given is void in so far as it concerns the
person improperly included in it,72 whether or not
such person is sui juris or under disability,78 and,
according to some authorities, is a mere nullity as
to all the parties to it,74 although other cases hold
that it is not void as to those who were actually
parties to the suit.76 A judgment for one not
formally a party has been held proper, however,
where the case was tried and the parties acted on
the understanding that such person was a party.76
It has been held that mere service of process on a
stranger to the proceedings will not support a judg-
ment against him.77
Where he is not a party to the action, judg-
ment cannot properly be rendered for or against an f
assignor,78 an employee in an arbitration proceed-
ing between his employer and labor union,79 an
insurance company in an action against the state
superintendent of insurance in whose hands it has
been placed for liquidation,80 an insurer of defend-
ant, even though insurer's attorney took over the de- {
f ense and participated in the trial as fully as though
insurer had been a party,81 .an officer of a defendant
county,82 an officer, agent, representative, or legal
assign of a defendant corporation,83 a party's attor- ,
ney,8* a witness,86 or a member of a class.86 How-
ever, there is authority which holds that, in a rep-
determine the parties entitled to the
benefit of such a judgment — Mc-
Nary v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New
York, D.C.Ohio. <> F.Supp. 616.
Judgment held not in favor of one
• not? a party
Judgment that, as between plain-
tiff and defendant, plaintiff is liable
for payment of note to bank is not
a judgment against plaintiff in favor
of the bank, which was not a party
to the action. — Nants v. Doherty, 262
S.W. 979. 203 Ky. 596.
71. 111. — Austin v. Royal League,
147 N.B. 106, 316 III. 188.
N.Y.— NtecAffer v. Boston & M. R.
R., 197 N.B. 328, 268 N.T. 400.
Ohio.— Cahill v. Fidelity & Casualty
Co., 175 N.E. 39, "37 Ohio App. 444.
Where plaintiff not in court
Judgment on merits cannot be ren-
dered where action fails because no
plaintiff is in court against whom
judgment can be rendered. — MacAf-
fer v. Boston & M. R. R., 197 N.E.
328, 268 N.T. 400,
72. U.S. — Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v.
Isabel, C.C.A.Okl., 129 F.2d 111
— U. S. v. Lee, D.C.Okl., 48 F.Supp.
63.
Cal. — Pennell v. Superior Court In
and for Los Angeles County, 262
P. 48. 87 Cal.App. 375.
111. — Newberry Library v. Board of
Education of City of Chicago, 55
N.B.2d 147, 387 111. 85.
Ky. — Chapman v. Blackburn, 175
S.W.2d 26, 295 Ky. 606— Rapp
Lumber Co. v. Smith, 48 S.W.2d
17, 243 Ky. 317.
Mont. — Moore v. Capital Gas Corp.,
158 P.2d 302.
N.C.— Powell v. Turpin, 29 S.B.2d
26, 224 N.C. $7— Downing v. White,
188 S.B. 815, 211 N.C. 40.
Tenn.— Charles A. Hill & Co. v. Bel-
mont Heights Baptist Church, 69
<5.W.2d 612, 17 Tean.App. 603.
Tex — Shaw v. Cunningham, Civ.
App., 42 S.W.2d 685, error refused
— Butman v. Jones, Civ.App., 24
aw.2d 796—Lipsitz v. First Nat
Bank, CivJLpp., 288 S.W. 609, af-
firmed, Com.App.. 293 S.W. 563,
modified on other grounds 296 S.
W. 490.
W.Va.— Russell v. Carpenter, 23 S.B.
2d 920, 125 W.Va. 51.
33 C:J. p 1106 note 58.
Validity of judgment or decree for
or against person not party to par-
tition proceeding see the C.J.S, ti-
tle Partition § 112, also 47 C.J. p
435 notes 93, 94.
Bnle in misnomer inapplicable
-The rule that the judgment con-
cludes the person intended - to be
sued where he is actually served
with process, even under a wrong
name, is inapplicable where judg-
ment is rendered against a person
not a party to the suit — Gofl v.
Will County Nat Bldg. Corporation,
35 N.B.2d 718, 811 IlLApp. 207.
73. Ky.— Proctor v. Mitchell, 194 S.
W.2d 177.
74. Colo.— Archuleta v. Archuleta,
123 P. 821, 52 Colo. 601.
33 C.J. p 1107 note 59. -
75. Mo. — Pacific Express . Co. Y.
Bmerson, 74 S.W. 132, 101 Mo.App.
62.
33- C.J. p 1107 note 60.
7ft, Wash.— Bleiler v. Wolff, 161 P.
2d 145, 23 Wash.2d 368.
77. Ga. — Shearouse v. Wolfe, 86 S.
B. 923, 111 Ga. 859.
33 C.J. p 1106 note 58 [b].
78. U.S.— Illinois Surety Co. v. U.
S., C.C., 36 S.Ct 321, 240 U.S. 214,
60 L.Ed. 609.
79. N.T.— Steinberg v. D. L. Horo-
witz, Inc., 25 N.Y.S.2d 630, 261
App.Div. 1380.
80. U.S. — Southwell v. Robertson,
D.C.Pa., 27 F.Supp. 944.
81. Tex.— Rio Grande Valley Tele-
phone Co. v. Hocut, Civ.App., 93
S.W.2d 167, error dismissed.
82. Gal. — Lloyd v. Los Angeles
County, 107 P.2d 622, 41 CaLApp.
2d 808.
83. Tefc. — Toakura Mill & Elevator
Co. v. Byars, Civ. App., 262 5.W.
.226.
84. Cal.— Sullivan v. Gage. 79 P.
69
537, 145 Cal. 770— In re Levinson's ,
Estate, 41 P. 483, 42 P. 479, 108
Cal. 450— Overell v. Overell, 64 P.
2d 483, 18 Cal.App.2d 499— Pennell |
v. -Superior Court in and for Los
Angeles County, 262 P. 48, 87 Cal.
App. 375 — Chavez v. Scully, 216
P. 46, 62 CaLApp. 6. j
Attorney's right to summary reme-
dy in cause for payment of fees
earned therein see Attorney and
Client § 194.
85. Pa.— Bell v. Feeney, Cora.PL, 59
Montg.Co. 279.
86. N.C.— Williams v. Williams, 74
N.C. 1.
33C.J. pl!06 note 58 [f].
Judgment for member
(1) In representative action on
behalf of all similarly situated, only
those named as plaintiffs and who
enter the action before judgment
may share in recovery. — Atkins v. ;
Trowbridge, 148 N.Y.S. 181, 162 App.
Div. 629— Hendry v. Title Guarantee
& Trust Co., 300 N.Y.S. 741, 165
Misc. 349, modified on other grounds
8 N.Y.S.2d 164, 255 App.Div. 497,'
affirmed 21 NJB.2d 515, 280 N.Y. 740.
(2) In class suit under Fair. La-
bor' Standards Act by employee as
representative of class of employees
to which he belongs, no judgment
could be entered in favor of any
employee against employer for any
specific sum of. money unless such
employee was either a party to the
suit, or had expressly designated
some one to represent him. in the
suit, or bad intervened in the suit
— Brooks v. Southern Dairies, D.C.
Fla., 38 F.Supp. 588.
Judgment against member
(1) The equitable doctrine of class
representation does not permit a
plaintiff to designate certain par-
ties as representatives of other nu-
merous members of a voluntary un-
incorporated association in order
to obtain personal -judgments as to
members not named.— Webb & Mar-
tin v. Anderson-McGriff Hardware
Co., 3 S.E.2d 882, 188 Ga. 291. .,
§ 28
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
resentative or class suit, where tihose joined as par-
ties fairly represent those* not joined, and their in-
terests are the same, a judgment entered as in a
class suit will be binding on all members of the
class.*?
In general the rights and liabilities of persons not
parties to the action cannot be adjudicated there-
in,*8 since a court should not adjudicate the rights
or liabilities of a person unless he is actually or
constructively before it89 Title to property of one
not a party may not be determined,90 or a lien es-
tablished and. foreclosed against one not a party,91
or the right to the proceeds of taxes levied to pay
bonds determined in a suit to which bondholders
are not parties,92 or a contract with one not a party
(2) In bondholder's suit to enforce
trust and alleged lien against state
and numerous owners of lands,
where such owners were designated
as a class but not actually made
parties, the court had no jurisdic-
tion to enter decree against them
or their lands. — State v. Woodruff,
150 So. 760, 170 Miss. 744.
87. 111. — Newberry Library v. Board
of Education of City of Chicago,
55 N.E.2d 147, 387 111. 85.
Persons hound by Judgment by
reason of privity or representation,
although not formal parties, may be
subjected to the judgment by rule.
—Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Schmidt,
Ky., 20 S.Ct 620, 177 U.S. 230, 44 L.
Ed. 747.
Administrators acting1 as plaintiffs
. Where in suit by stockholders the
recovery was purely representative,
it was held immaterial that certain
of the plaintiffs held only as admin-
istrators.— 'Stearns Coal & Lumber
Co. v. Van Winkle, C.C.A.Ky., 221
P. 590, 137 C.C.A. 314, certiorari de-
nied -36 SXJt 554, 241 U.S. 670, 60
L.Ed. 1230.
88, U;6. — Dewalt v. State Farm
Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. of
Bloomington, 111., C.C.A.MO., 99 7.
2d 846, certiorari denied State
Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. of
Bloomington, 111. v. Dewalt, 59
S.Ct 583, 306 U.S. 644, 88 L.Ed.
1043.
Ala. — Continental Ins. Co. of New
York v. Rotholz, 133 So. 587. 222
Ala. 574.
CaL— Potter v, Lawton, 5 P.2d 904,
118 CaLApp. 558— Moakley v. Los
Angeles Pac. Ky. Co., 277 P. 883,
99 CaLApp. 74— O'Neil v. Ross, 277
P. 123, 98 CaLApp. 306.
Conn. — Lunde v. Minch, 136 A. 552,
105 Conn. 657.
Fla. — Coral Bealty Co. v. Peacock
Holding Co., 1*38 So. 622, 103 Fla.
916.
Ga. — Ware County v. Cason, 5 S.E.2d
597, 61 Ga.App. 15.
Karf.— Kansas Utilities Co. v. City
of Burlington, 44 P.2d 223, 141
Kan. 926, appeal dismissed 56 S.
Ct. 81, 296 U.S. 658, 80 KEO. 469.
Mass. — Bancroft v. Cook, 162 N.B.
691, 264 Mass. 343.
Mich.— Royal Oak Tp. v. City of
Ferndale, 15 K,W.2d 707, 309 Mich.
458 — Capitol -Savings & Loan Co.
v. Standard Savings & Loan Ass'n
of Detroit, Mich., 250 N.W. 309,
264 Mich. 550— Washburn v.
Waite, 250 N.W. 306, 264 Mich.
557.
Mo. — Jenkins v. John Taylor Dry
Goods Co., 179 S.W.2d 54, 352 Mo.
660 — McClure v. Wilson, App., 185
S.W.2d 878— Hocken v. Allstate
Ins. Co., 147 S.W.2d 182, 235 Mo.
App. 991 — Stevens v. Hurley, 279
S.W. 723, 220 Mo.App. 1050.
N.J. — Trenton Potteries Co. v. Black-
well, 43 A.2d 831, 137 N.J.Eq. 113
— Breitman v. Jaehnal, 132 A. 291,
99 N.J.Eq. 243, affirmed Breitman
v. Jaehnel, 135 A. 915, 100 N.J.Eo;.
559.
N.M.— Scudder v. Hart, 110 P.2d 536,
45 N.M. 76.
N.T.— Sunshine v. Marsh, 38 N.T.S.
2d 562, 265 App.Div. 927, affirmed
50 N.E.2d 105, 290 N.Y. 775— Nor-
man v. General American Transp.
Corporation, 47 N.T.S.2d 390, 181
Misc: 233, affirmed 45 N.Y.S.2d
929, 267 App.Div. 758.
Ohio. — National Surety Co. v. Bohn,
182 N.E. 506, 125 Ohio St 537.
Okl.— Town of Buffalo v. Walker, 257
P. 766, 126 Okl. -6.
Pa.< — 'Pleska v. Farley, Com.Pl., 40
Lack.Jur. 152.
S.C.— Holt v. Calhoun, 179 S.E. 501,
175 S.C. 481.
S.D.— Boots v. Null, 238 N.W. 307,
59 S.D. 109.
Tex — General Exchange Ins. Cor-
poration v. Young, Civ.App., 143
S.W.2d 805— Sparks v. Mince, Civ.
App., 138 S.W.2d 203— Beeler v.
Loock, Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d 644,
error dismissed — Employers' Lia-
bility Assur. Corporation v. Neely,
Civ.App., 60 S.W.2d 836, error dis-
missed—•'Stewart v. Rockdale State
Bank, Civ.App., 52 S.W.2d 915, af-
firmed 79 S.W.2d 116, 124 Tex. 431
—Scaly v. Scott, Civ.App., 11 S.W.
2d 605.
Utah. — Tanner v. Provo Reservoir
Co., 103 P.2d 134, 99 Utah 158.
Wash.— Bayha v. Public Utility Dist.
No. 1 of Grays Harbor County, 97
P.2d 614, 2 Washed 85— Cooney
v. Cooney, 8 P.2d 540, 164 Wash.
553.
Wis. — Madden Bros. v. Jacobs, 235
N.W. 780, 204 Wis. 376.
Adjudication in partition proceeding
of rights of person not party
thereto see the C.J.S. title Parti-
70
'tion § 112, also 47 C.J. p 4*35 note
92.
In proceeding in:
Admiralty see Admiralty § 157.
Equity see Equity § 601.
Judgment as binding only parties
and privies see infra §§ 762-821.
Persons subject to ouster under
judgment of ejectment see Eject-
ment § 122 e.
Rights of persons not parties not
determined in mandamus pro-
ceeding see the C.J.S. title Man-
damus § 334, also 38 C.J. p 923
note 53.
Cannot divest rights
When a person is not made a party
to the suit, the court has no juris-
diction to divest him of a vested
right— Alward v. Borah, 44 N.E.2d
865, 381 111. 134.
Establishment of parish boundary
In hypothecary action involving
land alleged by defendants to be
situated in another parish than that
in which suit, to which neither par-
ish was party, was brought, decree
cannot establish boundary between
parishes. — Commercial Bank v.
Meaux, La.App., 158 So. 688,
Judgment's effect on third person
not party to the action will not be
determined by the court rendering
it— Williams v. Pease, 43 P.2d 22,
181 Wash. 388—33 C.J. p 1106 note
58 [a] (2).
89. D.C. — Ducker v. Butler, 104 P.
2d 236, 70 App.D.C. 103.
La.— Collins v. Cliff Oil & Gas Co.,
App., 177 So. 120.
Wash.— Bayha v. Public Utility Dist.
No. 1 of Grays Harbor County, 97
P.2d 614, 2 Wash.2d 85.
90. Gal. — City of Los Angeles v.
Knapp, 70 P.2d 643, 22 Cal.App.2d
211.
La. — Esparros v. Vicknair, 17 So.2d
924, 205 La. 699.
91. Tex. — Gholson v. Northside
Chevrolet Co., Civ.App., 90 S.W.2d
579.
92. U.S. — Boynton v. Moffat Tunnel
Improvement Dist, C.C.A.Colo., 57
F.2d 772, certiorari denied Moffat
Tunnel Improvement Dist. v.
Boynton, 53 S.Ct. 20, 287 U.S. 620,
77 L.Ed. 638— St Louis-San Fran-
cisco Ry. Co. v. Blake, C.C.A.Okl.,
36 F.2d 652.
Colo. — Denver Land Co. v. Moffat
Tunnel Imp. Dist, 284 P. 339, 87
Colo. 1.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
29
to the action rescinded,93 or a note or note and
mortgage canceled as to a person who is not a
party to the action,94 or a lien claim released as to
members of a class who did not join as plaintiffs in
the proceeding,95 or a deed set aside where all per-
sons interested are not parties to the proceeding,96
or a sale of property of one not a party to the ac-
tion ordered,97 even though the owner is a corpo-
ration owned by another corporation whose shares
are in suit.98 However, the validity of mortgage
bonds owned by cross defendants dismissed from
the action may be adjudicated where the plaintiff in
the action represents cross defendants as a trustee
of such bonds.99 Specific performance will not be
decreed against a person not a party to the pro-
ceeding.1 A judgment against a person attempted
to be made a party by motion after the conclusion
of the trial is erroneous.2
§ 29. Death of Party
a. In general
b. Joint parties
a. In General
Ordinarily a judgment rendered subsequent to a
party's death Is erroneous. If the party died prior to
the commencement of the action the judgment is abso-
lutely void, if he died subsequent to its institution the
judgment is generally held to be voidable, but if he died
after verdict or decision the Judgment is generally held
toH>e valid.
Ordinarily a judgment should not be entered for
or against a party after his death ;3 and if the ac-
tion is continued or revived thereafter the judg-
ment should be for or against his representative.4
A judgment for or against a person who was dead
at the time the action was instituted is at least er-
roneous.5 If the defendant was dead at the time
the action was commenced the judgment will be ab-
solutely void;6 and like rule has been applied where
one named as plaintiff died before commencement of
the action,7 although there is other authority which
holds that a judgment rendered in an action begun
after plaintiff's death is not void but voidable.8
Where the court has acquired jurisdiction of the
subject matter and the person during the lifetime
of a party, the prevailing rule is that a judgment
rendered for or against him after his death, al-
though erroneous and liable to be set aside, is not
void but voidable ;9 but there is substantial author-
ity to the effect that such a judgment is absolutely
93. Term.— Hawkins v. Byrn, 261 S.
W. 980. 150 Term. 1.
94. Ark.— Peebles Garage v. Down-
ey, 111 S.W.2d 454, 195 Ark. 31.
Wis.— In re Peterson's Estate, 8 N.
W.2d 266, 242 Wis. 448.
Want of necessary parties as pre-
cluding: Judgment or decree of can-
cellation see Cancellation of In-
struments § 52.
95. Idaho.— Brown v. Twin Falls
Canal Co., 276 P. 305, 47 Idaho
402.
d& Conn.— Delaney v. Kennaugh,
186 A. 108, 105 Conn. 557.
Mich.— Goldberg v. Goldberg, 295 N.
W. 194, 295 Mich. 380.
Necessary parties in action to quiet
title see the C.J.S. title Quieting
Title § 53, also 51 C.J. p 206 note
18-p 208 note 41.
Validity of Judgment in action to
quiet title where owners of land
not parties see the C.J.S. title
Quieting Title S 103, also 51 C.J.
p 282 note 25.
97. U.S. — Gammon v. Ramsey, C.C.
A.N.J., 13 F.2d 743.
Wyo.— State v. District Court of
Ninth Judicial Dist. in and for
Fremont County, 292 P. 897, 42
Wyo. 214, 71 A.L.R. 993, substitu-
tion of parties denied 1 P.2d 74,
4-3 Wyo. 173.
96. U.S. — Gammon v. Ramsey, C.C.
A.N.J., 18 F.2d 74"3.
99. Tex.— Fidelity Trust Co. of
Houston v. Highland Farms Cor-
poration, Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d
1014, error dismissed.
1. B.C. — Thalis v. Wurdeman, 121
F.2d 70, 73 APP.D.C. 322.
Decree in proceeding for specific per-
formance not operative as to per-
son not party or privy to pro-
ceeding see the C.J.S. title Specific
Performance § 168, also 58 C.J. p
1273 notes 25-26.
2. Tex.— Rio Grande Valley Tele-
phone Co. v. Hocut, Civ.App., 93
S.W.2d 167, error dismissed.
33 C.J. p 1106 note 58 [c].
3. N.T.— In re Van Nostrand's Will,
29 N.Y.S.2d 857, 177 Misc. 1.
Pa. — Bautsch to Use of Schlear v.
Bubbenmoyer, Com.Pl., 32 Berks
Co.L.J. 233.
4. Pa.— Aiken v. Use of Mayberry
v. Mayberry, 198 A. 874, 128 Pa.
Super. 15.
Erroneous determination, as to per-
son in whose name the action should
be revived was held not to render
judgment void. — Griffin v. Proctor,
14 So.2d 116, 244 Ala. 537.
Failure to make substitution error
Where parties to suit died before
entry of decree failure to make sub-
stitution for them was error. — Smith
v. Schmitt, 231 P. 176. 112 Or. 687.
5. N.C. — Hinkle v. Walker, 197 S.E.
129, 213 N.C. 657.
6. CaL — Conlin v. Blanchard, 28 P.
2d 12, 219 CaL 632 — In re Parsell's
Estate, 213 ?. 40, 190 Cal. 454, 25
A.L.R. 1561— Jones v. Walker, 118
71
P.2d 299, 47 Oal.App,2d 566 — Cor-
pus Juris cited in Garrison v.
Blanchard, 16 P.2d 273, 274, 127
CaLApp. 616 — Hogan v. Superior
Court of California in and for
City and County of San Francisco,
241 P. 584, 74 CaLApp. 704.
Conn. — Corpus Juris cited in
O'Leary v. Waterbury Title Co.,
166 A. 673, 676, 117 Conn. 39.
HI. — Corpus Juris cited in State
Bank of Prairie du Hocher v.
Brown, 263 IlLApp. 312, 315.
Mo. — State ex rel. Jacobs v. Trimble,
274 S.W. 1075, 310 Mo. 150— Wicoff
v. Moore, 257 S.W. 474.
Tex. — Bdens v. Grogan Cochran
Lumber Co., Civ.App., 172 S.W.2d
730, error refused — State Mortg.
Corporation v. Affleck, Civ.App., 27
S.W.2d 548, reversed on other
grounds, Com.App., 61 S.W.2d 274.
Va.— Rennolds v. Williams, 136 S.E.
597, 147 Va. 196.
33 C.J. p 1108 note 69— «4 C.J. p
555 note 70.
7. Minn. — Poupore v. Stone-Ordean-
Wells Co., 157 N.W. 648, 132 Minn.
409.
Pa. — Lynch v. Kerns, 10 Phila. 335.
8. W.Va.— McMillan v., Hickman, 14
S.B. 227, 85 W.Va, 705.
33 C.J. p 1109 note 71—34 C.J. p 555
note 69.
9. U.S.— Corpus Juris cited in
Streeter v. Chicago Title & Trust
Co., D.C.ni., 14 F.2d 331.
Cal. — Liuzza v. Bell, 104 P.2d 1095,
40 CaLApP<2d 417— Corpus Juris
29
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
void,10 even though the party died after trial.11 If,
however, plaintiff12 or defendant1* dies after ver-
dict or decision it is. generally held that a proper
and valid judgment may be rendered on the verdict
or decision. Also under statutes expressly so pro-
viding a valid judgment may properly be entered
in cases where a party dies after verdict, decision,
or report, or after an accepted offer to allow judg-
ment to be taken.14 Although such statutes have
been held to be in derogation of the common law,16
they have also been declared to be declaratory of
the common law, which never allows a delay by
the court to change the condition of a suit.1* A
judgment rendered subsequent to the death of a
party after verdict or decision may properly be
entered mine pro tune as of the date of the verdict
or decision, as considered infra § 118; and in ju-
risdictions where a judgment rendered after the
death of a party by a court which has acquired ju-
risdiction of the parties and subject matter is not
void but voidable, a judgment entered as of the
actual date when rendered, at a time subsequent to
plaintiffs death after verdict or decision, is not
void.17 Under a statute authorizing a judgment
subsequent to a party's death after verdict or de-
cision if the court renders its opinion and directs
judgment in plaintiff's favor prior to defendant's
death it may, after defendant's death, order the
findings filed nunc pro tune as of the date of the
opinion, as considered in the CJ.S. title Trial §
645, also 64 C.J. p 1271 note 78, and enter judgment
against decedent on such findings ;18 or, if no find-
ings are required because the case was submitted
on an agreed statement of facts, the court may ren-
oited in Garrison v. Blanchard. 16
P.2d 273, 274, 127 Gal.App. 616—
Hogan v. -Superior Court of Cali-
fornia in and for City and County
of San Francisco, 241 P. 584, 74
CaLApp. 704.
Ky.— Mosely v. Morgan, 252 S.W.
117, 199 Ky. 845.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in Adams
v. Carson, 25 P.2d 653, 657, 165
Okl. 161.
Pa.— Klemstine v. Allen, 16 PaJ>ist
& Co. 221.
Tex.— -Garcia v. Jones. Civ.App., 155
S.W.2d 671, error refused.
33 C.J. p 1107 note 68— 34 C.J. p 555
note 67.
Effect of death of party on admiral-
ty proceeding see Admiralty 5 97.
10. Ala. — Griffin v. Proctor, 14 So.
2d 116, 244 Ala. 8* 7— Corpus Jtu
ris cited in Martin v. Cothran, 200
So. 609, 610, 240 Ala. 619— Corpus
Juris cited in McDonald v. Wo-
mack, 107 So. 812, 818, 214 Ala.
309.
La.— West v. Green, 131 So. 595, 15
La. App. 216.
Mo.— De Hatre v. Ruenpohl, 108 S.
.W.2d 357, 341 Mo. 749, transfer-
red, see, App., 123 S.W.2d 243*-
Carter v. Burns, 61 S.W.2d 933, 332
. Mo. 1128 — Cole v. Farkei>Wash-
ington Co., 207 S.W. 749, 276. Mo.
220, -overruling State v. Riley, 118
S.W. 647, 219 Mo. 667, and Coleman
v. McAnulty, 16 Mo. 173, 57 Am.
D. 229.
N.Y. — In re Hirnschall's Estate, 265
N.Y.S, 36, 147 Misc. 897.
33 C.J. P 1107 note 66—34 C.J. p 555
note 68.
Abatement and revival after death
of party see Abatement and Re-
vival §5 114-186.
Effect of dissolution of corporation
on judgment for or against it see
Corporations .§§ 17!35-1786.
afiortrar* foreclosure
N.J.— In re Admiral Sampson Bldg.
& Loan Ass'n of Newark, 41 A.2d
378, 136 N.J.EQ;. 292.
Successor in. interest
Judgment rendered after death of
party should not bind those suc-
ceeding to rights of action or prop-
erty of deceased. — MacAffer v. Bos-
ton & M. R. R., 197 N.E. 328, 268
N.Y. 400.
11. La.— West v. Green, 131 So. 595,
15 La~kpp. 216.
Judgment for costs
Kan. — Jones v. Jones, 167 P.2d 634,
161 Kan. 284.
12. W.Va Lively v. Griffith, 99 S.
E. 512, 84 W.Va, 393.
33 C.J. p 1109 note 72.
13. Or.— Adams v. Perry. Ill P«2d
838, 168 Or. 132.
33 C.J. p 1109 note 74.
14. Cal. — Fox T. Hale & Norcross
Silver Min. Co., 41 P. 328, 108 Cal.
478— Liuzza v. Bell, 104 P.2d 1095,
40 Cal.App.2d 417— Copp T. Rives,
217 P. 813, 62 CaLApp. 776.
Mo. — In re Thomasson, 159 S.W.2d
626 — Homer v. Nicholson, 56 Mo.
220.
N.Y.— In re Taylor's Estate, 33 N.Y.
S.2d 584, 178 Misc. 217.
Va.— Green's Ex'rs v. Smith, 132
S.E. 839, 146 Va. 442, 44 A.L.R.
1175.
33 C.J. p 1109 note 75—34 C.J. p 76
note 67 [a].
Purpose of statute
(1) Its purpose is to permit entry
of judgment where merits of contro-
versy have, in substance, been pass-
ed on before death of party. — Davis
v. Ross, 20 N.Y.S.2d 375, 259 App.
Div. 577, reargument denied 21 N.Y.
S.2d 391, 259 App.Div. 1029— In .re
Taylor's WiU, 33 N.Y.S.2d 584, 178
Misc. 217— Nicholson v. McMullen,
28 N.Y.S.2d 287, 176 Misc. 693.
(2) It was never intended to al-
low a judgment to be entered
against deceased which could not
72
have been entered in his lifetime. —
Nicholson v. McMullen, supra.
Actions to which applicable
(1) The statute applies generally
to all ordinary civil actions, whether
involving equitable or legal rights.
--State v. Stratton, 19 S.W. 803, 110
Mo. 426.
(2) The statute applies only to ac-
tions not abating on death. — Grotsch
v. KGassey, 231 N.Y.S. 469, 133 Misc.
373— J34 C.J. p 76 note 67 [a] (1),
(3).
Accepted offer to allow Judgment
A judgment by default is not an
"accepted offer to allow judgment."
—Nicholson v. McMullen, 28 N.Y.S.
2d 287, 176 Misc. 693.
Verdict, decision, or report held
made i
N.Y.— Davis ,v. Ross, 20 N.Y.S.2d
375, 259 App.Div. 577, reargument
denied 21 N.Y.S.2d 391, 259 App.
Div. 1029— In re Taylor's Will, 33
N.Y.S.2d 584, 178 Misc. 217.
Judgment held act proper
(1) Generally. — Nicholson v. Me-.
Mullen, 28 N.Y.S.2d 287, 176 Misc.
693.
(2) Where facts concerning alleg-
ed settlement were in dispute. — (Mer-
rill v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 282 N.Y.
S. 574, 246 App.Div. 541.
15. N.Y.— -Nicholson v. McMullen,
28 N.Y.S.2d 287, 17$ Misc. 693.
16. Mo. — Homer v. Nicholson, §6
Mo. 220.
S3 C.J. p 1109 note 76.
17. Mass.— Reid v. Holmes, 1*7
Mass. 326.
33 C.J. p 1109 note 78.
18. Cal. — Fox v. Hale & Norcross
Silver Min. Co., 41 P. 328, 108
CaL 478— Copp v. Rives, 217 P.
813, 62 Gal.App. 776.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
29
der judgment .after defendant's death where it was
submitted prior thereto.19
A judgment entered nunc pro tune after the death
of plaintiff and at a time when a substitution of
parties for decedent had not been made has been
held void.20 . In some jurisdictions where defendant
dies before judgment the court is without juris-
diction as to him until the action is revived and his
representatives are brought before the court,21 and
in other jurisdictions service of notice on all per-
sons interested in the estate of the deceased defend-
ant is prerequisite to a valid judgment.22
A judgment erroneous because rendered for or
against a dead person may be reversed on appeal if
that fact appears on the record.2^ If such fact
must be. shown by evidence aliunde, the remedy is
by writ of error coram nobis, or by motion or peti-
tion in the cause.24 The right to impeach in a col-
lateral proceeding a judgment rendered subsequent
to the death of a party is considered infra § 419.
Terminated trust. A judgment cannot bestow on
retiring trustees of a terminated testamentary trust
continuing power to control and manage the real
estate of the trust,25 even though all the benefici-
aries under the will acquiesced in or expressly con-
sented thereto.26
b. Joint Parties
Whether or not a judgment for or against Joint par-
ties, rendered after the death of one of them, Is void or
voidable depends on the rule followed In the particular
jurisdiction as to the effect of the death of a party be-
fore judgment, and on whether or not the judgment Is
an entirety.
Under the rule, considered infra § 33 b, that a
judgment for or against several parties is an en-
tirety and either good or bad as a whole, and where,
as discussed supra subdivision a of this section, the
death of a party before judgment renders the judg- !
ment void, a judgment for or against several parties
jointly after the death of one of them is void as to
all of them;27 but where such death renders the
judgment merely erroneous and voidable, a judg-
ment for or against several parties jointly after the
death of one of them, while not void, is erroneous
and voidable as to all of them.28 On the other
hand, in jurisdictions where a judgment for or
against several parties is not necessarily good or
bad as an entirety, considered infra § 33 b, the
death of one of such parties before judgment will
render the judgment void,29 or merely erroneous
and voidable,30 as to such deceased party, according
to the locally prevailing rule, considered supra sub-
division a of this section; but it will not affect the
validity or regularity of the judgment as to thfc
other parties.81
In jurisdictions where judgment may be taken
for or against one or more of several defendants,
judgment may be taken against the surviving de-
fendant or defendants in an action against several
defendants, one or more of whom dies prior to
judgment.32 The rule that judgment may be ren-
dered against a party who dies after verdict but
19. Cal. — Copp v. Rives, supra.
20. Cal. — Boyd v. Lancaster, 90 P.
2d 317, 32 Cal.App.2d 574— Maacon
v. Avery, 89 P.2d 684, 32 CaLApp.
2d 300— Scoville v. Keglor, 80 P.
2d 162, 27 Cal.App.2d 17.
21. Ky.— "Murphy v. Blackburn, 16
S.W.2d 771, 229 Ky. 109.
22. Me. — Consolidated Rendering
. Co. v. Martin, 145 A. 896, 128 Me.
1 96, 64 A.L.R. 790— Trask v. Trask,
3 A. 37, 78 Me. 103— Bridgham v.
Prince, 33 Me. 174.
23. Cal.— Liuzza v. Bell, 104 P.2d
1095, 40 Cal.App.2d 417— Boyd v.
Lancaster, 90 P.2d 317, 82 CaLApp.
2d 574.
La. — Muller v. Davis-Wood Lumber
Co., 2 La.App. 359.
33 C.J. p 1109 note 77.
Judgment for heir
Judgment against lessee in favor
of lessors individually and as heir
at law of a deceased lessor is error,
where Jt appears of record that les-
sor died after filing of suit and there
was neither pleading nor proof as
to condition of deceased's estate or
that administration was pending, or
that none was necessary. — Levine v.
Finfcelstein, Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.
2d 360.
24. HI.— Claflin v. Dunne, 21 N.E.
834, 129 111. 241, 16 Am.S.R. 263.
33 C.J. p 1110 note 78.
Judgment subsequent to party's
death as ground for:
Motion or petition to vacate judg-
ment:
Generally see infra § 276.
By confession see infra 5 323.
Writ of error coram nobis see in-
fra $ 312.
25- N.Y.— In re Miller's Will, 178
N.B. 555, 2&7 N.Y. 349.
26. N.Y.— In re Miller's Will, supra,
27. La. — McCloskey v. Wingfield, 29
La.Ann. 141.
33 C.J. p 1110 note 82.
Judgment after death of principal in
action against principal and sure-
ty see the C.J.S. title Principal
and Surety § 277, also 50 C.J. p
223* notes 5-6.
Judgment by confession -against
several parties jointly, .rendered aft-
er the death of one, of them, is void
as to all. — State Bank of Prairie du
Rocher v. Brown, 263 Ill.App. 312.
28. 111.— Claflin v. Dunne, 21 N.B:
834, 129 111. 241, 16 Am.S;R. 263.
33 C.J. p 1101 note 84.
Bringing- in representatives
In action claiming undivided inter-
est in land, there could.be no proper
judgment as to all defendants after
death of one defendant subsequent
to submission of case without, bring-
ing In deceased's representatives. —
Murphy v. Blackburn, 16 S.W.2d 771,
229 Ky. 109.
29. N.Y.— Hawkes -v. Clatty, 107 3ST.
T.S, 534, 122 App.Div. 546, ;
30. Ohio. — Swasey v.' Antram, ' 24
Ohio St. 87. ' ,
33 C.J. p 1110 note 87."
31* Ga. — Sanders v. , Etcherson, 96
Ga, 404— Hardwick v. Hatfleld, 119
S-B. 430, 30 Ga.App. 7$0.
33 C.J. p 1110 note 89.
Death of costipulator as not. affect-
ing right to judgment against
stipulator in admiralty proceeding
see Admiralty I 161.
32. Cal, — Sham v. Forbes, 23 P.
198, 82 Cal. 577— Howe v. Chand-
ler, 1 Cat 167. " .-,]""..
30
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
before judgment has been applied where one of two
joint parties die after verdict33 In an action by
several plaintiffs, the death of a plaintiff whose
cause of action dies with him does not abridge the
court's right to enter judgment in favor of the
surviving plaintiffs.34 Plaintiff is not entitled to
judgment against a defendant as to whom the ven-
ue was proper only during the time a codefendant,
who died during the pendency of the action without
its revival against his administrator, was a party
to the action.35
§ 30. Joint Parties
Under the codes and practice acts the Judgment
may determine the ultimate rights of all parties.
Under various codes and practice acts the court,
in rendering judgment, may determine the ultimate
rights of all the parties to the controversy,36 and
may render as many judgments, joint, separate, and
cross, as may be necessary to adjust the rights of
the several parties.87
§ 31. Plaintiffs Generally
At common law where several plaintiffs Join in an
action all must recover or none; but under the various
statutes and practice acts Judgment is authorized in fa-
vor of such plaintiffs, as show themselves entitled to re-
cover, although others fail.
At common law, and in the absence of statute
changing the rule, where several plaintiffs join in a
common-law action, all must recover or none, and
if only some of the plaintiffs have a right of ac-
tion, the suit must fail as to all.38 The rule ap-
plies to actions on obligations alleged to be due
plaintiffs jointly,39 and in some jurisdictions has
been limited to actions in which plaintiffs assert a
joint right or title.40 It has been applied to ac-
tions ex contractu in which a joint obligation or in-
debtedness to all plaintiffs is alleged,4* to actions
for contribution,42 and to actions to recover land
in which a joint title is alleged in the plaintiffs,43
such as actions in ejectment.44 Qn the other hand,
judgment has been permitted in favor of fewer than
all the plaintiffs in actions founded on tort, as an
action for conversion,45 in proceedings to cancel a
chattel mortgage,46 and in ejectment where the
plaintiff entitled to recover is trustee of his co-
plaintiffs47 or where a plaintiffs right to recover
is barred by the statute of limitations.48
Under the various codes and practice acts judg-
ment is authorized in favor of any plaintiff who
shows himself entitled, although the others may
fail,49 as where the claims of the several plaintiffs
are distinct, although sufficiently united by a com-
mon interest to authorize their joinder in a single
suit;50 and, even though the coplaintiffs are enti-
tled to share in the recovery, a judgment awarding
the entire recovery to one plaintiff alone is not
33. N.T.— Long: V. Stafford, 8 N.E.
522, 103 N.Y. 274.
84 C.J. p 76 note 67 [a] (5).
34. Cal.— Liuzza v. Bell, 104 P.2d
1095, 40 Cal.App.2d 417.
35. Ark.— Murrell v. Exchange
Bank, 271 S.W. 21, 168 Ark. 645,
44 A.L.R. 1391.
36. Neb.— Whaley v. Matthews, 287
N.W. 205, 1-86 Neb. 767,
Death of one Joint party see supra
5 29.
37. Miss.— Aven v. -Singleton, 96 So.
165, 132 Miss. 256.
38. Ala.— Sharpe v. McCloud, 199
So. 848, 240 Ala. 499.
Fla. — Sahlberg v. J. A. Teague Fur-
niture Co., 130 So. 432, 100 Fla.
972.
Oa. — Powell v. Porter, 5 S.B.2d 884,
189 Ga. 440. '
HI.— Misek v. Village of La Grange,
239 I11.APP. 360.
Mo.— Tore v. Tore, 144 S.W. 847, 240
Mo. 451.
33 C.J. p 1110 note 92.
Conformity to pleadings with re-
spect to parties see Infra § 51.
38. Mo.— Dietrich v. Mothershead,
App.,'150 S.W.2d 565— McLaran v.
Wilhelm, 50 Mo.App. 658.
40. Ala.— Henderson v. J. B. Brown
Co., 28 So. 79, 125 Ala. 566.
33 C.J. p 1110 note 92 [a].
41. Fla,— Sahlberg v. J. A. Teague
Furniture Co., 130 So. 482, 100 Fla.
972— Edgar v. Bacon, 122 So. 107,
97 Fla. 679.
42. Ala. — Gafford V. Tittle, 141 So.
653, 224 Ala. 605.
Mo.— Tore v. Tore, 144 S.W. 847,
240 Mo. 451.
43. Ga£ — Guess v. Morgan, 26 S.E.
2d 424, 196 Ga. 265— Powell v.
Porter, 5 S.E.2d 884, 189 Ga. 440
— Burton v. Patton, 1*34 S.E. 603,
162 Ga. 610.
44. Ala.— Sharpe v. McCloud, 199
So. 848, 240 Ala. 499— McLeod v.
Adams, 118 So. 636, 218 Ala. 424—
Crow v. Smith, 92 So. 905, 207 Ala.
311— Salter v. Fox, 67 So. 1006, 191
Ala. 34— Whitlow v. Echols, 78
Ala. 206.
Ga. — Guess v. Morgan, 26 S.E.2d 424,
196 Ga. 265.
19 C.J. p 1092 note 2, p 1217 note 50.
45. Mo.— Walker v. Lewis, 124 S.
W. 567, 140 Mo.App. 26.
46. Mo. — Harrety v. Kontos, App.,
184 S.W.2d 195.
47. Ind.— Adler v. Sewell, 29 Ind.
598.
74
48. Ga.— Pendergrast v. Gullatt, 10
Ga. 218.
49. Cal.— Liuzza v. Bell, 104 P.2d
1095, 40 Cal.App.2d 417— Wiseman
v. -Sklar, 285 P. 1081, 104 CaLApp.
369— Curtis v. Nye & Nissen, 261
P. 747, 86 CaLApp. 507.
Ind. — Rohan v. Gehring, 137 N.E.
288, 80 IndApp. 46.
Miss. — Aven v. Singleton, 96 So. 165,
132 Miss. 256.
Neb.— Hoffman v. Geiger, 279 N.W.
350, 1<34 Neb. 643, modified on oth-
er grounds 281 N.W. 625, 135 Neb.
349.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in City of
Sapulpa v. Toung, 296 P. 418, 430,
147 Okl. 179.
Tex — South Dakota^Texas Oil Co.
v. Hackworth, Civ.App., 248 S.W.
813, error dismissed.
33 C.J. p 1110 note 93.
Equitable precedents controlling
The code provisions are in sub-
stance enactments of rules of equi-
ty pleading and practice and equita-
ble precedents control their con-
struction or effect. — Bonde v. Stern,
14 N.W.2d 249, 73 N.D. 273.
50. Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in
City of Sapulpa v. Toung, 296 P.
418, 430, 147 Okl. 179.
33 C.J. p 1111 note 94.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
void.51 The authorization for such a judgment has
been held to apply in all actions, whether in law or
equity,52 and in actions ex contractu53 and in eject-
ment.54 In equity, the common-law rule has no
application, and a decree may be rendered for one
or more joint plaintiffs and against others, as jus-
tice and equity in the particular case may require,
as discussed in Equity § 601.
A judgment against, coplaintiffs is void as to a
plaintiff over whom the court does not have juris-
diction;55 but in jurisdictions where a judgment is
not regarded as an entirety, which is either good or
bad as to all, the invalidity of a judgment as to one
of two or more coplaintiffs against whom it is ren-
dered will not vitiate it as to the others.56 Where
an action should have been dismissed as to one of
two defendants on plaintiff's motion therefor, it has
been held that a judgment entered on the other de-
fendant's cross bill cannot determine issues between
plaintiff and the defendant as to whom the action
should have been dismissed.57
Joint or several judgment; separate judgments.
A judgment in favor of joint plaintiffs should be
joint if their cause of action is joint;58 but if their
cause of action is several the judgment should be
several.^9 Thus a joint recovery on separate, sev-
eral, and independent causes of action in favor of
separate plaintiffs is improper;60 in such case a
judgment which does not preserve the separate
rights of each in the total recovery is illegal.61
However, the failure to designate the amount
awarded to each of the plaintiffs has been held .not
to be error where only one plaintiffs cause was
actually tried and the judgment is for plaintiff, in
the singular.62 In some jurisdictions a judgment
which does not dispose of the case as to all the
plaintiffs is erroneous;63 but under some statutes
the common-law restriction against the rendition of
more than one judgment in an action has been
changed so as to permit the rendition of as many
separate judgments as are necessary to adjust the
rights of the several plaintiffs.64
§ 32. Relief as between Coplaintiffs
Under various statutes a judgment determining the
ultimate rights of the plaintiffs as between themselves
is authorized.
Under the statutes and practice acts in a num-
ber of jurisdictions the judgment may determine
the ultimate rights of the plaintiffs as between
themselves.65
§ 33. Defendants Generally
a. In general
b. Entirety of judgment
c. Process against joint defendants
a. In General
The common -law rule requiring Judgment fn an ac-
tion against several defendants to be against all or none
has generally been changed by statute so as to permit
judgment against some or all of the defendants.
*^a
At common law, and in the absence of statute
51. Tex.— Chandler v. Stewart, Civ.
AppM 90 S.W,2d 590, error dis-
missed.
52. N.D.— Bonde v. Stern, 14 N.W.2d
249, 73 N.D. 273.
53. Ind.— Rohan v. Gehring, 137 N.
E. 288, 80 Ind.App. 46.
N.Y. — Comerford v. Fahy Market,
198 N.T.S. 3-53, 204 App.Div. 533.
54. Tenn. — Ferguson v. Prince, 190
S.W. 548, 136 Tenn. 543.
19 C.J. p 1092 note 1, p 1217 notes
51 [b], 52.
66. Cal.— Tracy v. Maclntyre, 84 P.
2d 526, 29 Cal.App.2d 145.
Plaintiff not notified
A judgment against coplaintiffs
for attorney fees of an attorney dis-
missed on a motion to substitute at-
torneys is void as to a plaintiff who
was not notified of and did not ap-
pear at the hearing on the motion. —
Tracy v. Maclntyre, supra.
66. CaL — Tracy v. Maclntyre, su-
pra,
57. U.S.— «auter v. First Nat Bank,
C.C.A.I11., 8 F.2d 121.
Effect of dismissal or nonsuit on de-
fendant's right to affirmative re-
lief see Dismissal and Nonsuit §
39 b.
Plaintiff's right to dismiss as to one
or more codefendants see Dismiss-
al and Nonsuit §§ 30-32.
58, Ind. — Wheeler v. Hawkins, 19
N.B. 470, 116 Ind. 515.
33 C.J. p 1126 note 22.
$9. Cal. — Emery v. Pacific Employ-
ers Ins. Co., 67 P.2d 1046, 8 Cal.
2d 663.
33 C.J. p 1126 note 22.
Action under Pair labor Standards
Act
In action by employees on behalf
of themselves and other employees
similarly situated to recover over-
time compensation under Fair Labor
Standards Act, a joint judgment may
not be had. — Smith v. Stark Truck-
Ing, D.C.Ohio, 53 F.Supp. 826.
60. Teac. — First Nat Bank v. Cros-
sett, Civ.App., 268 S.W. 997.
Wyo. — Taylor v. Stockwell, 145 P.
743, 22 Wyo. 492, rehearing denied
147 P. 3-28, 22 Wyo. 492.
33 C.J. p 1111 note 94 [a].
«L N.J.— Musto v. Mitchell, 146 A.
212, 105 NJT.Law 575— Wilson v.
Deschner, 167 A. 670, 11 N.J.Miac,
75
609 — Warner v. Public Service Co-
ordinated Transport, 153 A.. 711, 9
N.J.Misc. 328.
62. N.J.— Melber v. Great Atlantic
& Pacific Tea Co., 167 A. 746, 11
N.J.Misc. 635.
63. Colo.— -Shaw v. Brady, 251 P.
532, 80 Colo. 337.
64. Miss. — Aven v. Singleton, 96 So.
165, 132 Miss. 256.
Rendition of separate judgments
against several defendants see in-
fra § 36 c.
Plaintiff suing ia double capacity
Where same party suing Individ*
ually and as administratrix in one
action recovers both for death ben-
efits payable to her and sick bene-
fits payable to decedent, judgments
for the death benefits should be en-
tered in her own name, and judff^
ment for sick benefits entered sepa*
rately in her representative capaci-
ty.—Wallace v. Patriotic Order Sons
of America, Washington Camp No.
50, 189 A. 712, 125 Pa, Super. 268.
66. Cal.-— Curtis v. Nye & Nissen,
261 P. 747, '86 Cal.App. 507. *
In eaulty see Equity $603.
33
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
changing the rule, if several defendants are joined
in an action recovery ordinarily must be for or
- against all or none,66 at least in an action in which
the liability asserted is joint67 In many states,
however, under the codes and practice acts therein
or authorized rules of court, judgment may be given
for or against one or more of several defendants,
and in an action against several defendants the
court may in its discretion render judgment against
one or more of them, leaving the action to proceed
against the others whenever a several judgment is
proper.68 Such statutes were intended to create a
common procedure for both actions ex contractu
and ex delicto,69 and to apply to all actions founded
on contract the same rule with regard to the right
of recovery against some of the defendants which
prevails at common law in the case of actions found-
ed on torts,70 or, as some authorities say, to adopt
the rule prevailing in equity as to joint defend-
ants.71
Under such statutes the court possesses chancery
powers and may adapt its judgment to the rights of
the parties as found from the facts established from
the evidence.72 If a plaintiff sues two or more de-
fendants on a liability alleged to be joint, or joint -
and several, he is no longer compelled to establish
a joint cause of action against all, but a judgment
may be taken against the party or parties shown to
be liable, when the others are not liable,78 and in
favor of defendant or defendants found not liable.74
Plaintiff is not required to elect before completion
of the trial whether he will ask for a joint judgment
against all the defendants sued or a several judg-
ment against one of them.75
A statute which authorizes judgment against such
defendants as are defaulted or on trial are found
liable has been held not to enable the court, on
sustaining a demurrer as to one defendant, to pro-
ceed to trial and enter judgment against the re-
maining defendants.76 Since an amendment cannot
be made which effects an entire change of parties
defendant, as discussed in the CJ.S. title Parties §§
72, 85, also 47 CJ. p 131 note 28, p 161 note 20-
p 162 note 37, if plaintiff is not entitled to recover
66. Fla. — Harrington v. Bowman,
US So. 651, 106 Fla. 86.
67. Pa. — Bauman v. Blttner, 33 A.
2d 273. 152 Pa.Super. 628.
68. Ala.— Pollard v. Rogers, 173 So.
881, 234 Ala, 92.
Ariz. — Bracker Stores v. Wilson, 103
P.2d 253, 55 Ariz. 403.
Cal.— Trans-Pacific Trading Co. v.
Patsy Frock & Romper Co., 209
i P. 357, 189 Cal. 509— Weisz v. Mc-
1 See, 87 P.2d 379, 31 Cal.App.2d
1 144, rehearing denied 88 P.2d 200,
31 Cal.App.2d 144.
Colo.— Beatty v. Resler, 118 P.2d
1084, 108 Colo. 434.
Conn. — Woodruff v. Perroti, 122 A,
452, 99 Conn. 639.
Ind.— Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland v. Standard Oil Co., 199
N.E. 169, 101 Ind.App. 301.
Mich. — Rimmele v. Huebner, 157 N.
W. 10, 190 Mich. 247.
Neb.— Whaley v. Matthews, 287 N.
W.^205, 136 Neb. 767.
N.J. — Ordinary of State v. Bastian, 5
AJ2d 463, 17 N.J.Misc. 105.
NT.— Reeve v. Cromwell, 237 N.T.
S. 20, 227 App.Div. 32.
OkL— Corpus Juris quoted in City
of Sapulpa v. .Young, 296 P. 418,
431,. 147 Okl. 179.
Or, — Anderson y. Maloney, 225 P.
318, 111 Or. 84— Fischer v. Bayer,
216 P. 1028, 108 Or. 311.
Tex. — Shaw v. Whitfleld, Civ.App.,
. 3-5 S.W.2d 1115— Collins v. Stiiger,
CivJVjpp., 253 S.W. 572.
S3 C.J. p 1115 note 21.
Additional defendants
The statute applies to additional
defendants brought on the record by
scir-e facias proceeding- where "the
original defendant alleges that they
are Jointly liable with him.— Carroll
v. Kirk, 19 A.2d 584, 144 Pa.Super.
211.
69. Ark. — OBerryman v. Cudahy
Packing Co., 87 S.W.2d 21, 191
Ark. 533.
70. Ind.— Brandt v. Hall, 82 N.E.
929, 40 Ind.App. 651.
33 C.J. p 1117 note 25.
Common-law rule in actions of:
Contract see infra § 34.
Tort see infra § 35.
71. N.D.— Bonde v. Stern, 14 N.W.
2d 249, 73 N.D. 273.
33 C.J. p 1117 note 26.
72. Cal. — Fageol Truck & Coach
Co. v. Pacific Indemnity Co.,. 117 P.
2d 669, 18 Cal.2d 748.
Ind.— Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland v. Standard Oil Co., 199
N.B. 169, 101 Ind.App. 301.
Differentiation of liability of de-
fendants
In action against principal and
guarantor who did not guarantee en-
tire debt, judgment which allowed
greater recovery against principal
than against guarantor was not
duplicitous. — Baten v. Thornhill, Tex.
Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d 608, srror re-
fused.
Where only one satisfaction . per.
mitted
(1) Decree ordering enforcement
of mortgage debt out of various
properties of different defendants
but providing for only one satisfac-
tion of the debt was not contradic-
tory.— Gray v. First Nat. Bank of
Chicago, 51 N;R2d 797, 320 IlLApp.
76
682, reversed on other grounds 57
N.B.2d 363, 388 111. 124.
(2) Judgment permitting note
holder to recover from maker and
maker's debtor was not objectiona-
ble as allowing double recovery,
where judgment provided for credit-
ing maker with amount collected
from his debtor. — J. C. Whaley Dum-
ber Co. v. Citizens' Nat Bank of
Lubbock, Tex.Civ.App., 57 S.W.2d
637.
73. Ga. — Farley v. Groover, 3 S.E.
2d 135, 60 Ga.App. 169.
Iowa. — Lull v. Anamosa Nat. Bank,
81 N.W. 784, 110 Iowa -537.
La,— Raphiel v. Louisiana Ry. &
Nav. Co., 99 So. 459, 155 La. 590.
Mass. — Mackintosh v. Chambers, 190
N.E. 38, 285 Mass. 594.
Nev. — Ward v. -Scheeline Banking- &
Trust Co., 22 P.2d 358, 54 Nev. 442.
Or. — Fischer v. Bayer, 210 P. 453,
108 Or. 311.
Vt— C. B. Johnson & Co. v. Marsh,
15 A.2d 577, 111 Vt. 266, 131 AJU
R. '502— F. S. Fuller & Co. v. Mor-
rison, 169 A. 9, 106 Vt. 22.
33 C.J. p 1115 note 24.
In actions against partners see the
C.J.S. title Partnership § 235, also
47 C.J. p 1010 note l-s> 1011 note
11.
74. Mo.— Wippler v. Hohn, 110
2d 409, 341 Mo. 780:
33 £.J. p 1127 note 26.
76. Mich. — Rimmele v. Huebner,
157 N.W. 1$, 190 Mich. 247.
76. Mass.— Riley v. Burns, 22 NJEB.
2d 761, 304 Mass. 15.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 33
against the original defendant judgment cannot be
had against a new defendant brought into the case,
unless he consents thereto.77
Abatement as to some of defendants. In an ac-
tion against several defendants on a joint obliga-
tion a judgment in abatement in favor of one of
the defendants on his plea of privilege as to venue,
applicable to himself alone, has been held to be er-
toneous.78
b. Entirety of Judgment
In some jurisdictions a judgment against several de-
fendants is an entirety, and if erroneous or void as to
any of them is equally so as to all; but In other Ju-
risdictions the rule I* otherwise.
According to some authorities a judgment against
two or more defendants jointly is regarded as an
entirety,79 whether rendered in a contract or tort
action,80 so that, if it is irregular or erroneous81
or void82 as to any of the defendants, it is equally
so as to all. According to other authorities, how-
ever, a judgment against two or more defendants
is not regarded as an entirety,8^ and a judgment
may be valid and enforceable as to one or some of
defendants, although voidable or void as to oth-
ers,84 at least in actions ex delicto.85 Decisions
even within the same jurisdiction are sometimes in
conflict as to the entirety of judgments.88 In some
of the decisions it has been stated that the com-
mon-law rule that judgments are entireties is ef-
fective only in exceptional cases,87 that the rule
has been relaxed in some cases in the interest of
justice where error is found as to one party only,88
and that the rule is not applicable to judgments in
actions in rem.89
c. Process against Joint Defendants
(1) In general
(2) Resident and nonresident joint de-
fendants
(3) Statutory joint judgment
(4) Statutory separate judgment
(1) In General
In an action against several defendants, only some
of whom were duly served with process, Judgment against
all is void as to the defendants not served; and, un-
less the rule is changed by statute, it Is void as to the
others If the Judgment Is considered as an entirety. If
judgment is rendered against only the defendants served
with process, it is erroneous or voidable where the ac-
tion is on a Joint contract, unless the statutes provide
otherwise.
In general, as discussed supra §§ 19, 23, a judg-
ment against persons over whom the court has not
acquired jurisdiction is void. Accordingly, if there
77. Ala. — Covington v. Robinson, 6
So.2d 421, 242 Ala. 337— McKelvey-
Coats Furniture Co. v. Doe, 198 So.
128, 240 Ala. 135— Roth v. Scruggs,
106 So. 182, 214 Ala. 32.
Situation does not arise until the
evidence is in If the plaintiff con-
tends that both parties are liable.
-— McKelvey-Coats Furniture Co. v.
Doe, 199 So. 128, 240 Ala. 135.
78. Fla, — Universal Credit Co. v.
Beckwith, 172 So. -358, 126 Fla.
865.
Necessity for two or more defend-
ants to plead grounds of abate-
ment separately or jointly seel
Abatement and Revival § 188 c.
79. 111.— State Bank of Prairie du:
Bocher v. Brown, 263 Ill.App. 312
— Sergo v. Bloch, 263 llLApp. 198.
Mo.— Neal v. Curtis & Co. Mfg. Co.,
41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo. 389.
33 C.J. p 1130 note 59.
Entirety of judgments generally see
supra § 3.
.80. 111.— State Bank of Prairie du
Rocher v. Brown, 263 Ill.App. 312.
81. 111.— Fredrich v. Wolf, 50 N.E.2d
755, 383 111. 638— Sergo v. Bloch,
263 Ill.App. 198.
Mo.— Neal' v. Curtis & Co. Mfg. Co.,
„ 41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo. 389.
33 C.J. p 1130 note 59.
Death of party see supra § 29.
Reversal as to some of the parties
and affirmance as to others on ap-
peal or writ of error see Appeal
and Error §§ 1919-1922.
82. 111.— State Bank of Prairie du
Rocher v. Brown, 263 ULApp. 312
— Berkemeier v. Dormuralt Motor
Sales, 263 ULApp. 211— Singer v.
Cross, 257 IlLApp. 41.
Me. — Consolidated Rendering Co. v.
Martin, 145 A. 896, 128 Me. 96,
64 A.L.R. 790.
33 C.J. p 1119 note 37, p 1130 note
59.
83. . Ky. — Reed v. Runyan, 10 S.W.
2d 824, 226 Ky. 261.
Miss. — Bank of Philadelphia v. Pos-
ey, 92 So. 840, 130 Miss. 530, sug-
gestion of error sustained on oth-
er grounds 95 So. 134, 130 Miss.
825.
33 C.J. p 1130 note 60.
84. Ky. — Reed v. Runyan, 10 S.W.
2d 824, 226 Ky. 261.
Okl.— Bledsoe v. Green, 280 P. 301,
138 Okl. 15.
Pa. — Merchants Banking Trust Co.
v. Klimosky, 9 Pa.Dist. & Co. 143,
23 Sch.Leg.Rec. 78.
Tex.— U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
v. Richey, Civ.App., 18 S.W.2d 231,
error refuser'.
33 C.J. p 1130 note 60.
85. Minn. — Engstrand v. Kleftman,
90 N.W. 1054, 86 Minn. 40-3, 91
Am.S.R. 359.
86. Mo.— Mclntosh v. Wiggins, 191
S.W.2d 637, certiorari denied 66
S.Ct 1015— Neal v. Curtis '& Coil
77
Mfg. Co., 41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo.
389.
33 C.J. p 1131 note 61.
In Mississippi'
(1) It has been held that a judg-
ment at law is an entirety and is
valid or invalid as a whole. — Bout-
well v. Grayson, 79 So. 61, 118 Miss.
80— Carrollton Hardware & Imple-
ment Co. v. Marshall, 78 So. 7, 117
Miss. 224 — Comenitz v. Bank of Com-
merce, 38 So. 35, 85 Miss. 662— Weis
v. Aaron, 21 So. 763, 75 Miss. 138,
65 Am.S.R. 594.
(2) These cases, however, have
been overruled. — Bank of Philadel-
phia v. Posey, 92 So. 840, 130 Miss.
530, suggestion of error sustained on
other grounds 95 So. 134, 130 Miss.
825.
(3), The overruled decisions will
control the validity of a judgment
which affects property rights where
it was rendered prior to the time
they were overruled. — Bank of Phil-
adelphia v. Posey, 95 So. 134, 130
Miss. 825.
8(7. Mo. — State v. Blakemore, 205 S.
W. 626, 275 Mo. 695.
88. Mo.— Neal v. Curtis & Co. Mfg.
Co., 41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo. 389—
Stotler v, Chicago & A. Ry. Co., 98
S.W. 509, 200 Mo. 107.
89. Mo.— Mclntosh v. 'Wiggins, 191
S.W.2d 537, certiqrarj denied 66
S.Ct. 1015.
33
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
are several defendants, all must be served with
process or appear in the action in order to warrant
a judgment against all;9^ and, where none was
properly served with process or made an appear-
ance in the action, a personal judgment against
such defendants is void,91 A judgment against all
the defendants, some of whom were not served with
process and did not appear in the action, is void as
to the absent defendant or defendants,92 and at com-
mon law and in the absence of statute changing the
rule is at least erroneous and voidable as to all the
defendants.93 In jurisdictions where a judgment is
considered as an entirety and if void as to one
party is void as to all, discussed supra subdivision
b of this section, such a judgment is absolutely void
as to all.94 However, in jurisdictions where judg-
ments are not considered as an entirety, such a
judgment is at most voidable and not void as to the
defendants who were served with process or ap-
peared;95 and in some jurisdictions if the action is
ex delicto the judgment is valid and binding against
the defendants served with process.96 Under the
codes and practice acts in various jurisdictions the
judgment is valid and binding against parties over
whom the court had jurisdiction by proper service
of process or appearance,97 or at least it is an er-
ror or irregularity of which the defendants served
cannot complain.98
f
90. I1L— Werner v. W. H. Shons Co-
173 N.B. 486, 341 111. 478.
At common law and in the absence of statute
changing the rule, a judgment against only the de-
fendants served with process or appearing is er-
roneous and voidable as to them in an action on a
joint contract against several defendants, some of
whom were not subjected to the jurisdiction of the
court by due service of process or appearance,99
it having been the rule under the early common
law that, where several defendants were sued on a
joint contract, plaintiff was not entitled to judg-
ment against any of them, until all were served
with process, or until those not served were prose-
cuted to outlawry.1 Under some statutes the fail-
ure to obtain service of process on some of sev-
eral defendants will not affect the validity of a
judgment against the others in an action on a joint
and several obligation;2 and under others it has
been held that in an action against several defend-
ants on a joint obligation judgment may properly
be taken against one, or fewer than all, where the
other defendants were nonresidents not served with
process.3 A voluntary general appearance for de-
fendants not served will confer jurisdiction and per-
mit a judgment against all.4 Statutes in derogation
of the common law, and authorizing judgment
jointly against all defendants on process served on
only some of them, discussed infra subdivision c
(3) of this section, or a several judgment against
91. Ky.— Viall v. Walker, 58 S.W.
2d 415, 248 Ky. 197.
In discovery proceeding1 after
judgment, however, the court under
some statutes has been held to have
Jurisdiction to render personal judg-
ment on service of summons against
defendants out of county, even
though none resided, or was served,
within county. — Viall v. Walker, su-
pra.
92. Ga. — Hicks v. Bank of Wrights-
ville, 194 S.B. 892, £7 Ga.App. 233.
Ky.— Capper v. Short, 11 S.W.2d 717,
226 Ky. 689.
Miss.— Bank of Philadelphia v. Pos-
ey, 92 So. 840, 130 Miss. 530, sug-
gestion of error sustained on oth-
er grounds, 95 So. 134, 1-30 Miss.
825.
N.C.— Crocker v. Vann, 135 S.E. 127,
192 N.C. 422.
Okl.— Bledsoe v. Green, 280 P. 301,
138 Okl. 15.
Tenn.— Ridgeway v. Bank of Ten-
nessee, 11 Humph. 523 — Galbraith
v. Kirby, 109 S.W.2d 1168, 21 Tena
App. 303.
33 C.J. p 1118 note 34.
Statutory joint judgment see infra
subdivision c (3). of this section.
93. Ky.— Capper v. Short, 11 S.W.2d
717, 226 Ky. 689.
33 C,J. p 1119 note 35.
94. Me. — Buffum v. Ramsdell, 65
Me. 252, 92 Am.D. 589.
33 C.J. p 1119 note 36.
95. Ky. — Capper v. Short, 11 S.W.
2d 717, 226 Ky. 689.
83 C.J. p 1119 note 38.
96. Minn. — Engstrand v. Kleffman,
90 N.W. 1054, 86 Minn. 40.3, 91
Am.S.R. 359.
97. Fla.— Street v. Crosthwait, 183
So. 820, 134 Fla. 158, modified on
other grounds 186 So, 516, 136 Fla.
327.
Miss. — Bank of Philadelphia v. Pos-
ey, 92 So. 840, 130 Miss. 530, sug-
gestion of error sustained on other
grounds 95 So. 134, 130 Miss. 825.
Mo.— Nations v. Beard, 267 S.W.
19, 216 Mo.App. 33.
Okl.— Bledsoe v. Green, 280 P. 301,
138 Okl. 15.
Tex. — Taylor v. Hustead & Tucker,
Civ. App., 248 S.W. 766, reversed on
other grounds, Com. App., 257 S.W.
232.
98. Go.— Hicks v. Bank of Wrights-
ville, 194 S.E. 892, 57 Ga.App. 233.
Mo. — State ex rel. Cunningham v.
Haid, 40 S.W.2d 1048, 828 Mo. 208.
33 C.J. p 1119 note 40.
99.
Fla. — Harrington
78
v. Bowman,
136 So. 229, 102 Fla. 339, modified
on other grounds 143 So. <651, 106
Fla. 86.
33 C.J. p 1118 note 33.
Process or appearance see supra §5
23-26.
1. Fla. — Corpus Juris cited in Har-
rington v. Bowman, 143 So. 661,
653, 106 Fla. 86.
33 C.J. p 1118 note 81.
2. Ga.— Hicks v. Bank of Wrights-
ville, 194 S.E. 892, 57 G*a.App. 233.
3. Mass.— Alfred J. Silberstein,
Inc., v. Nash, 10 N.B.2d 65, 298
Mass. 170 — Lennon v. Cohen, 16-3
N.E. 63, 264 Mass. 414.
4* Ala.— Eaton v. Harris, 42 Ala.
491.
33 C.J. p 1119 note 41.
Collateral attack where appearance
unauthorized see infra § 424.
Unauthorized appearance
Judgment against nonresident de-
fendant on demurrer filed by other
defendants and purporting to include
him was void where he had not been
served with process, had not volun-
tarily appeared or authorized any
attorney to appear for him, and had
not authorized any of codefendants
or other persons to employ counsel
for him. — Street v. Dexter. 77 P.2d
707, 182 Okl. 360.
49
JUDGMENTS
§ 33
only those served, discussed infra subdivision c (4)
of this section, must be strictly construed and fol-
lowed; judgment is authorized only in cases falling
within the statute as thus construed.*
. Construction of judgment. Where process is
served only on some of the defendants, and judg-
ment is taken against "defendants" without naming
them, and without any appearance of those not
served, the judgment will be understood to be only
against those who were duly served.6
(2) Resident and Nonresident Joint Defend-
ants
In the absence of a compliance with statutory re-
quirements, a judgment against Joint defendants, resi-
dents of different counties or districts, Is void as to the
nonresident defendants.
Under statutes authorizing the venue of actions
against several defendants, who are properly joined
as such, although residents of different counties, to
be laid in the county where one of them resides or
is summoned, discussed in the C.J.S. title Venue §§
93-98, also 67 CJ. p 101 note 22-p 118 note 27,
and permitting in such actions the issuance and
service of process on the nonresident defendants,
discussed in the C.J.S. title Process §§ 8, 32, also SO
CJ. p 451 notes 6-12, p 475 note 1-p 476 note 13,
a judgment taken against a nonresident of the coun-
ty of venue contrary to the provisions of the stat-
ute is void as to him;7 but in jurisdictions where
judgments are not considered as an entirety, dis-
cussed supra subdivision b of this section, it is not
thereby made void as* to parties who were properly
served with process.* Thus a judgment against a
defendant who was not summoned in the county of
venue is void as to him where the resident and non-
resident defendants were improperly joined in the
action;9 and it is likewise void, where a statute
prohibits judgment in such case, if the action is
discontinued or dismissed as to,10 or judgment is
not rendered against,11 the defendant or defend-
ants residing or served in the county of venue. If,
however, the nonresident defendant appears and
contests the court's jurisdiction over him, or other-
wise enters his appearance, a judgment against him
is at most erroneous or voidable.12
(3) Statutory Joint Judgment
Under various joint debtor acts a Judgment in form
against all the defendants may be rendered In an action
on a Joint obligation against several defendants, some
of whom were not served with process, which Is good
as a personal Judgment against the defendants served
and enforceable against their separate property and the
Joint property of all, located within the state, but not
against the individual property of those not served.
Under a class of statutes commonly known as
"joint debtor acts,"13 which have been sustained as
essentially constitutional,1* and which were enacted
to supersede the necessity of proceeding to outlawry
against one not found or brought into court,15 it
has been held that, where one or more defendants
are sued on a joint obligation, and process is served
on one or more but not on all defendants, plaintiff
may proceed against those served, unless the court
otherwise directs,1* and, if successful, recover a
judgment in form against all the defendants,17
which is good as a personal judgment against de-
5. Fla.— Davis v. First Nat. Bank
& Trust Co. of Orlando, 150 So.
633, 112 Fla. 485— Harrington v.
Bowman, 143 So. 651, 106 Fla, 86.
33 C.J. p 1119 note 45.
6. Ark.— Neal v. Singleton, 26 Ark.
491.
33 O.J. p 1119 note 46.
7. Ky. — Hays v. Baker, 35 S.W.2d
296, 237 Ky. 265.
8. Ky. — Reed v. Runyon, 10 S.W.2d
824, 226 Ky. 261.
9. Ky. — Ramey v. Weddington, 105
S.W.2d 824, 268 Ky. 675— Willis
v. Tomes, 132 S.W. 1043, 141 Ky.
431.
Collusive Joinder of defendants for
the sole purpose of bringing suit
against a nonresident of the county
of venue will render judgment
against nonresident void. — Wistrom
v. Forsling, 9 N.W.2d 294, 143 Neb.
294, rehearing denied and opinion
modified on other grounds 14 N.W.
2d 217, 144 Neb. 638.
Joint liability not shown
Ky. — Ramey v. Weddington, 105 S.
W.2d 824. 268 Ky. 675.
10. Ark. — Stiewel v. Borman, 37 S.
W. 404, .63 Ark. 30.
Ky.— Ramey v. Weddington, 105 S.
W.2d 824, 268 Ky. 675.
67 C.J. p 110 note 1 [b] (3).
lli Ky. — Ramey v. Weddington, su-
pra.
3d C.J. p 1085 note 26 [a].
12. Ky. — Ramey v. Weddington, su-
pra—Hays v. Baker, 35 S.W.2d
296, 237 Ky. 265.
13. U.S.— Hall v. Lanning, HL, 91
U.S. 160, 168, 23 LJBd. 271.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in. City of
Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 431,
147 Okl. 179.
Judgment in action on partnership
obligation where some of partners
not served with process see the
C.J.S. title Partnership S 235, also
47 C.J. p 1011 note 22-p 1013 note
31.
Sufficiency of service of process on
part of several executors or ad-
ministrators see Executors and
Administrators § 753.
79
14. Okl.— Corpus juris quoted in
City of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P.
418, 431, 147 Okl. 179.
33 C.J. p 1119 note 48.
15. OkL — Corpus Juris quoted in
City of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P.
418, 431, 147 Okl. 179.
33 CJ. p 1119 note 49.
le. U.S.— Hall v. Lanning, HL, 91
U.S.'l'SO, 2i3 L.Ed. 271.
Okl.— Corpus JurU quoted in City of
Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 431,
147 Okl. 179.
Or.— Chagnot v. Labbe, 69 P.2d 949,
157 Or. 280.
33 C.J. p 1120 note 50.
17. U.S.— Hall v. Lanning, 111., 91
U.S. 160, 23 L.Bd. 271.
N.Y.— Kittredge v. Grannis, 165 N.
B. 9S, 244 N.Y. 182— Kirsten v.
Chrystmos, 14 N.Y.S.2d 442.
Okl.— Corpus Juris quoted, in City of
Capulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 431,
147 OkL 179.
Or. — Chagnot v. Labbe, 69 P.2d 949,
157 Or. 280.
33 C.J. p 1120 note 51.
33
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
f endants who were served, or who appeared, and is
enforceable against their separate property,18 and
the joint property of them and the absent defend-
ant19 located within the state,20 but not against the
latter's individual property.21
Judgment under the statute is not authorized un-
less the obligation sued on is the joint22 contractu-
al23 obligation of all defendants. A judgment
against only the defendant or defendants served is
erroneous.24 Nonresident joint debtors are within
the operation of the statute, and property within
the state owned jointly by nonresident and resident
defendants may be subject to the judgment,25 but
a judgment under the statute against a citizen of
another state, as an absent joint debtor, is wholly
void in every other state, and will not be enforced
or given any effect.26 Other similar statutes lim-
ited to particular classes of cases, such as actions
on bills or notes, or other designated instruments,
have been enacted from time to time in different
jurisdictions.27
Such a judgment is not good and binding as a
personal judgment against the absent defendant,28
unless made so by the statute, in which event it
may operate as a personal judgment within the state
where rendered,29 subject to the right of the absent
defendant to show that he was not in fact; a joint
debtor, and that therefore the judgment against him
was void for want of jurisdiction, being unauthor-
ized by statute.30 It has been held that such a judg-
ment will not support an action against him on the
judgment in the state where the judgment was ren-'
dered,31 although the rule is otherwise under some
statutes,32 and especially not in the courts of anoth-
er state,33 and is not entitled, under the constitu-
tion, to full faith and credit in other states.34 It
will not stop the running of the statute of limita-
tions in favor of the absent defendant,35 or merge
or bar the original cause of action,36 at least not
in other states,37 although it may so operate in the
state, where rendered if the statute so provides.38
Such judgments have no other force or effect than
such as has been expressly given to them by the
statutes,39 which may, and sometimes do, make the
judgment prima facie evidence against the absent
defendant, reserving to him the right to contest the
merits and show that he ought not to have been
chargfed,40 while under other statutes the judgment
is not even prima facie evidence of indebtedness.41
A joint defendant not served has a right to appear
voluntarily in the action against plaintiffs objec-
tion.42 A statute providing that, when defendants
18. Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in
City of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P.
418, 431, 147 Okl. 179.
33 C.J. p 1120 note 52.
19. N.Y.— Kittredge v. Grannis, 155
N.B. 93, 244 N.Y. 182.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in City of
Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 431,
147 Okl. 179.
33 C.J. p 1120 note 52.
20. Okl.— Corpus Juris quoted la
•City of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P.
418, 431, 147 OkT; 179.
33 C.J. p 1120 note €3.
21. Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted to
City of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P.
418, 4-31, 147 Okl. 179.
33 C.J. p 1120 note 54.
22. N.Y.— Kittredge v. Grannis, 155
N.E. 93, 244 N.Y. 182.
Or. — Chagnot v. Labbe, 69 P.2d 949,
157 Or. 280.
33 C.J. p 1121 note 55.
23. N.Y.— Kittredge v. Grannis, 155
N,E. 93, 244 N.Y. 182.
Claim held not within statute
Claim of record holder of bank
stock against partnership as subse-
quent purchaser, for indemnity on
account of assessment, was held not
claim for joint indebtedness on con-
tract, such as warranted judgment
against both debtors where only one
was served. — Broderick v. Adamson,
265 N.Y.S. 804, 148 Misc. 353, revers-
ed on other grounds 268 N.Y.S. 7*66,
240 App.Div. 229, and modified on
other grounds 269 N.Y.S. 700, 240
App.Div. 202, motion denied 193 N.
B. 287, 265 N.Y. 495, and affirmed
196 N.B. 568, 267 N.Y. 538. Affirmed
277 N.Y.S. 951, 243 App.Div. 692, and
279 N.Y.S. 732, 244 App.Div. 707,
reversed on other grounds 200 N.
B. 811, 270 N.Y. 260. Affirmed 279
N.Y.S. 753, 244 App.Div. 708, affirm-
ed 200 N.B. 797, 270 N.Y. 228. Mod-
ified on other grounds 285 N.Y.S.
294, 246 App.Div. 268. Affirmed in
part 287 N.Y.S. 322, 247 App.Div.
711, reversed on other grounds 5
N.B.2d 838, 272 N.Y. 816.
24. Wis.— Brawley v. Mitchell, 66
N.W. 799, 92 Wis. 671.
33 C.J. p 1121 note 56.
25. N.Y.— -Kittredge v. Grannis, 155
N.E. 93, 244 N.Y. 182.
33 C.J. p 1121 note 57.
26. U.S. — Gojdey .v. Morning News,
N.Y., 15 S.Ct 559, 156 U.S. .518,
39 L.Ed. 517.
33 C.J. p 1121 note 58.
27. 111. — Neal v. Pennington, 6"5 HI.
App. 68.
33 C.J. p 1121 note 61.
28. U.S.— Hall v. Lanning, HL, 91
U.S. 160, 23 L.Bd. 271.
33 C.J. p 1121 note 62.
29. N.J.— Harker v. Brink, 24 N.J.
Law W.
33 C.J. p 1121 note 63.
3a N.J. — Harker v. Brink, supra.
80
31. Cal.— Tay v. Hawley, 39 Cal. 93.
33 C.J. p 1121 note 65.
32. N.Y. — Townsend v. Carman, €
Cow. 695, affirmed Carman v*
Townsend, 6 Wend. 206.
33 C.J. p 1121 note 66.
33. U.S.— Hall v. Lanning, I1L, 91
U.S. 160, 2« L.Bd. 271.
33 C.J. p 1121 note 67.
34. U.S. — Hall v. Lanning, supra.
3-3 C.J. p 1121 note 68.
35. N.Y.— Maples v. Mackey, 89 N.
Y. -146— Lane v. gaiter, 51 N.Y, 1.
36. N.Y.— Oakley v. Aspinwall, 4
N.Y. 513.
37. Mass. — Odoiri v. Denny, 16 Gray
114.
38. U.S. — D'Arcy v. Ketchum, La.,
11 How. 1-65, 13 L.Ed. 648.
39. N.Y.— Oakley v. Aspinwall, 4 N.
Y. 513,
35 C.J. p 1121 note 76.
40. U.S. — D'Arcy v. Ketchum* La.,
17 How. 165, 13 L.Bd. 648.
N.Y. — Townsend v. Carman, 6 Cow.,
695, affirmed Carman v. Townsend,
6 Wend. 206.
41. N.Y.— -Morey v. Tracey, 92 N.Y.
581.
33 C.J. p 1122 note 75.
42. N.Y.— McLoughlin v. Bieber, 51
N.Y.S. 805, 26 Misc. 143.
33 C.J. p 1122 note 74.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 34
are joint and solidary obligors, they may be cited
at the domicile of any one of them does not give
the court jurisdiction to render a judgment in per-
sonam against a nonresident not found within the
state.43
(4) Statutory Separate Judgment
Under various statutes in a Joint action against sev-
era) defendants, some of whom were not served with
process, Judgment may be rendered against those served,
excluding the others, provided the statutory conditions
precedent thereto are shown, which serrate Judgment
binds the Joint property of all the defendants and the
Individual property of those served.
Under statutes so providing if two or more per-
sons are sued in a joint action, plaintiff may pro-
ceed against any one or more of them on service of
process on them, notwithstanding there may be
others not served, and recover a judgment against
those served, excluding the others,44 provided it is
shown that defendants not brought in cannot be
found or that it is impossible to serve process on
them,45 and that there is a joint liability or joint
cause of action against all,46 and notation of the
fact of nonservice on the absent defendant is made
to appear in the judgment,47 where the statute
makes such facts conditions precedent.48 Such sep-
arate judgment binds the joint property of all the
defendants and the individual property of the de-
fendants served.49 A several judgment may be
rendered against only defendants served where the
liability is joint and several,60 or, in some juris-
dictions, even though it is joint51
§ 34.
Contract Actions
At common law and In the absence of a statute
changing the rule, a Judgment in an action ex contractu
against several defendants must be in favor of all de-
fendants or none, unless a defendant pleads matter which
goes to his personal discharge or an unnecessary and
improper party was Joined as defendant. Under various
codes and practice acts, however, Judgment may be
taken against the party or parties found liable and in
favor of those found not liable.
At common law, and in the absence of a statute
changing the rule, if several defendants are joined
in an action ex contractu, and all are brought be-
fore the court by service or appearance plaintiff
must recover against all or none, and it is not com-
petent to enter a judgment in favor of one defend-
ant and against another.52 Under codes and prac-
tice acts authorizing judgments to be rendered for
or against one or more of several defendants, dis-
cussed generally supra § 33 a, which are applica-
ble in actions ex contractu,53 including actions on
quantum meruit,54 judgment in an action against
several defendants on a joint, or joint and several,
obligation may be taken against the party or par-
ties shown to be liable, when the others are not
liable,55 and in favor of defendant or defendants
43. La. — Klotz v. Tru-Fruit Distrib-
utors, App., 173 So. S92.
44. Cal.— Merchants' Nat. Bank of
Los Angeles v. Clark-Parker Co.,
9 P.2d 826, 215 Cal, 296, 81 A.L.R.
778.
Fla. — Davis v. First Nat Bank &
Trust Co. of Orlando, 150 So. 633,
112 Fla. 485 — Harrington v. Bow-
man, 143 So. £51, 106 Fla. 86.
Ohio. — Hoyt v. Geo. W. Stone Co., 27
Ohio N.P.,N.S., 5-33.
33 C.J. p 1122 notes 77, 78.
45. Ind. — Hunt v. Adamson, 4 Ind.
108.
33 C.J. p 1122 note 79.
46. 111. — Cassady v. School Trus-
tees, 105 111. 560.
33 C.J. p 1122 note 80.
47. Fla.— Davis v. First Nat Bank
& Trust Co. of Orlando, 150 So.
633, 112 Fla. 485.
48. Fla,— Davis v. First Nat Bank
& Trust Co. of Orlando, supra.
33 C.J. p 1122 note 81.
49. Ga.— Wright v. Harris, 24 Ga.
415 — Denton v. Hannah, 77 S.B.
672, 12 Ga.App. 494.
50. N.M.— Leusch v. Nickel, 113 P.
595, 16 N.M. 28.
33 aj. p 1122 note 83.
51. Cal.— Merchants' Nat. Bank of
Los Angeles v. Clark-Parker Co.,
49C.J.S.-6
9 «P.2d 826, 215 Cal. 296, 81 A.L.R.
778.
52. Colo. — Corpus Juris cited in
Beatty v. Resler, 118 P.2d 1084,
1085, 108 Colo. 434— Corpus Juris
cited in Townsend v. Heath, 103
P.2d 691, 692, 106 Colo. 273.
Fla.— Davis v. First Nat. Bank &
Trust Co. in Orlando, 150 So. £33,
112 Fla. 485— Jones v. Griffin, 138
•So. 38, 103 Fla. 745— Harrington
v. Bowman, 1-36 So. 229, 102 Fla.
339, modified on other grounds 143
So. 651, 106 Fla. 86— Merchants' &
Mechanics' Bank v. Sample, 124
So. 49, 98 Fla. 759, rehearing de-
nied 125 So. 1, 98 Fla. 759.
Mass. — Riley v. Burns, 22 N.B.2d
761, 304 Mass. 15.
33 C.J. p 1111 note 98.
Conformity to pleadings and proof
see infra §§ 47-64.
Judgment against:
One or more:
Coparties in action:
Before justice of the peace see
the C.J.S. title Justices of
the Peace § 110,. also 35 C.J.
p 674 notes 87-93.
Of debt see Debt, Action of $
16.
Partners see the C.J.S.. title
Partnership § 235, also 47 C.
J. p 1010 note 2-p 1011 note
11.
81
Principal and surety see the C.
J.S. title Principal and Surety
§ 277, also 50 C.J. p 223 notes
96-1.
Defense "by one party
Where one defendant or several
joint defendants maintain defense
which negatives plaintiff's right to
recover against any defendant,
plaintiff is not entitled to judgment
against any defendant, although par-
ticular defendant does not appear
or plead such defense. — Mackintosh
v. Chambers, 190 N.B. 38, 285 Mass.
594.
68. Ariz. — Bracker Stores v. Wilson,
10-3 P.2d 253, 55 Ariz. 403.
Iowa. — Lull v. Anamosa Nat. Bank,
81 N.W. 784, 110 Iowa 537.
33 C.J. p 1115 note 22.
54. Or. — Fischer v. Bayer, 210 P.
452, 108 Or. 311.
55. Ariz. — Bracker Stores v. Wilson,
103 P.2d 253, 55 Ariz. 403— Reid
v. Topper, 259 P. 397, 32 Ariz. 381.
Colo. — Corpus Juris cited in Beatty
v. Resler, 118 P.2d'1084, 1085, 108
Colo. 434.
Conn. — Woodruff v. Perrotti, 122 A.
452, 99 Conn. 639.
Ind.^rFidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland v. Standard Oil Co., 199
NJL. 169, 101 Ind.App. 301.
§ 34
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
found not liable.56 However, as discussed infra
§ 36, such statutes do not permit the rendition of a
several judgment on a joint cause of action. If
plaintiff sues on and shows only a joint obligation,
judgment must be against all jointly liable or
none,57 except, under some statutes, where the oth-
er joint obligors are not served with process, as
discussed supra § 33 c; but if the proofs show a
several obligation, or a joint obligation as to two
or more defendants fewer than all, a recovery may
be had against those shown to be liable regardless
of the fact that only a joint obligation was al-
leged.58 In an action on a contract which at com-
mon law would have been joint only, but which by
force of statute is joint and several, as considered
in Contracts § 355 a (2), judgment may be had
against him or those of the obligees sued who are
shown to be liable.59 In an action on a contract
judgment may run against a party who is not a
party to the contract but is liable on an independ-
ent agreement to pay the amount due under the
contract60
Exceptions to common-law rule. Although the
common law rule has been long and well estab-
lished, it is not universal, whenever a defendant
pleads matter which goes to his personal discharge,
or any matter that does not go to the nature of the
writ, or pleads or gives in evidence a matter which
is a bar to the action against himself only, and of
which the others could not take advantage, judg-
ment may be for such defendant and against the
rest.61 In such case judgment in favor of a de-
fendant relying on a defense personal to himself
does not discharge the other joint obligors.62 It is
essential to the operation of this exception that a
defense insisted on by one of several joint debtors
be personal to him, and not one of which the oth-
er defendants could take advantage.63 Personal
defenses within the exception to the rule include
a discharge in bankruptcy64 or insolvency;65 the
defense of the statute of limitations;66 a release
of an obligor, with a reservation of the right to
proceed against the remaining obligor or obligors ;67
personal disability to contract,68 such as infancy,69
' Me.— Arnst v. Estes, 8 A.2d 201, 136
Me. 272.
Mass.— Dindio v. Meshaka, 175 N.E.
170. 275 Mass. 112.
Mich.— Waller v. -Sloan, 196 N.W.
347, 225 Mich. 600.
Mo. — Welch-Sandier Cement Co. v.
Mullins, App., 31 S.W.2d 86.
N.Y.— Reeve v. Cromwell, 287 N.Y.
S. 20, 227 App.Div. 32.
Ohio.— Maus v. Jones, 172 N.E. 157,
122 Ohio St. 459.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in City
of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 'P. 418,
431, 147 Okl. 179.
33 C.J. p 1115 note 24.
In actions on bills and notes see
Bills and Notes § 718 b.
Contribution, 'between, defendants
If defendant against whom judg-
ment is entered is required to pay
more than his proportionate share
of the judgment he may seek contri-
bution from the others. — Smude v.
Amidon, 7 N.W.2d 776, 214 Minn.
266.
56. Mich.— Waller v. Sloan, 196 N.
W. 347, 22;5 Mich. 600.
57. Colo. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Beatty v. Resler, 118 P.2d 1084,
1085, 1086, 108 Colo. 434.
Mass. — Mackintosh v. Chambers, 190
N.E. 38, 285 Mass. 594.
Mich.— Penfold v. filyfield, 68 N.W.
226, 110 Mich. 343.
N.T. — Giventer v. Antonofsky. 205
N.Y.S. 287, 209 App.Div. 679.
Okl.— Corpus Juris quoted in City
of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418,
431, 147 Okl. 179.
33 C.J. p 1117 note 27.
58. Colo. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Beatty v. Resler, 118 P.2d 1084,
1085, 1086, 108 Colo. 434.
Mass.— Alfred J. Silberstein, Inc. v.
Nash, 10 N.E.2d 65, 298 Mass. 170.
Mo.— Welch-Sandier Cement Co. v.
Mullins, App., 31 6.W.2d 86.
Mont.— McCay v. Butler, 114 P.2d
517, 112 Mont 249.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in City of
Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 431,
147 Okl. 179.
Or. — Hamm v. Basche, 80 P. 501, 22
Or. 613.
Pa. — Smith v. Walat & Stutzman, 99
Pa. Super. 147.
33 C.J. p 1117 note 27.
59. Mo. — Thomas v. Schapeler, App.,
92 S.W.2d 982.
Oral contracts have been except-
ed from the rule. — Townsend v.
Heath, 103 P.2d 691, 106 Colo. 273—
Exchange Bank of Denver v. Ford,
3 P. 449, 7 Colo. 314.
60. Conn. — Meyers v. Arm, 13 A.2d
507, 126 Conn. 679.
Liability of third person assuming
indebtedness under contract see
Contracts § 520.
61. Fla. — Davis v. First Nat. Bank
& Trust Co. of Orlando, 150 So.
6-33, 112 Fla. 485 — Harrington v.
Bowman, 143 <So. 651, 106 Fla. 86
— Corpus Juris cited in Jones v.
Griffin, 138 So. 38, 39, 103 Flo. 745.
Mass.—- Riley v. Burns, 22 N.E.2d
761, 304 Mass. 15— Mackintosh v.
Chambers, 190 N.E. 38, 285 Mass.
594.
Pa. — Baldwin v. Ely, 19-3 A. 299, 127
Pa.-Super. 110.
33 C.J. p 1112 note 99.
62. Pa. — Baldwin v. Ely, supra.
82
63. Ark.— State v. Williams, 17 Ark.
•371.
33 C.J. p 1113 note 1.
64. Mass.— Riley v. Burns, 22 N.E.
2d 761, 304 Mass. 15.
33 C.J. p 1113 note 2.
In action against general and spe-
cial partners see the C.J.S. title
Partnership § 486, also 47 C.J. p
1316 note 21.
65. Fla,— Corpus Juris cited in
Jones v. Griffin, 138 So. 38, 39, 105
Fla. 745.
33 C.J. p 1113 note «.
66. Minn. — Town v. Washburn, 14
Minn. 268, 100 Am.D. 219.
33 C.J. p 1113 note 8 [c].
Recovery against defendants where
action against codefendants is
barred by limitations generally
see the C.J.S. title Limitations of
Actions § 212, also 37 C.J. p 1003
notes 73-79.
67. Pa.— Baldwin v. Ely, 193 A. 299,
127 Pa.Super. 110.
68. Fla. — Jones v. Griffin, 138 So.
38, 103 Fla. 745.
69. Fla. — Corpus Juris cited in
Jones v. Griffin, 138 So. 38, 39,
103 Fla. 745.
Mass.— Riley v. Burns, 22 N.E.2d
761, 304 Mass. 15.
P&.— Wharen v. Funk, 31 A.2d 450,
152 Pa. Super. 133.
3-3 C.J. p 1113 note 5.
Invalidity of judgment as to infant
as not rendering it void as to his
adult codefendants see Infants §
122 a.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
35
insanity,70 or coverture;71 and other like mat-
ters.72
The rule has no proper application to an action
against administrators as such on a contract alleged
to have been made with decedent,73 or where some
of defendants are not served with process and do
not appear,74 or where the statement of claim shows
a several liability against one defendant, and the
action is dismissed as to the other joint defendants
before submission to the jury.75 Another exception
to the rule arises when one who is an unnecessary
or improper party is joined as a defendant.76
§ 35. Tort Actions
In tort actions Judgment ordinarily may be rendered
for or against one or more of several defendants.
In actions for tort against several defendants it
has generally been held that judgment may be ren-
dered against one or as many of defendants as the
proof shows were guilty of the wrong, and in favor
of those as against whom the proof fails,77 or
against some of defendants shown to be liable where
plaintiff waives his right to recover against the
others,78 although there formerly was some au-
thority to the effect that, in an action against two
or more for a joint tort, recovery was required to
be against all or none.79 This is also true under
codes and practice acts authorizing judgments to
be rendered for or against one or more of several
defendants, as considered generally supra § 33 a,
which are applicable in actions for tort,80 as are
rules of court to the same effect.81
If it appears during the course of the proceed-
ings that a defendant is not liable, the court may
render judgment in his favor and allow the case to
proceed against the others,82 and the court's dis-
charge of some of defendants in an action charg-
ing concurrent wrongful acts or omissions will not
preclude judgment against the others.83 Even after
verdict, where a joint liability has been found to
exist,84 or where several damages have been given
by the jury,85 judgment may be rendered against
one defendant alone. In jurisdictions where it is
proper to grant a new trial as to part of the par-
70. Fla.— -Corpus Juris cited to
Jones v. Griffin, 138 So. 38, 39, 103
Fla. 745.
111.— Aten v. Brown, 14 IlLApp. 451.
Validity of judgment against insane
person see Insane Persons § 151 b.
71* Fla.— Corpus Juris cited to
Jones v. Griffin, 158 So. 38, 39,
103 Fla. 745.
33 C.J. p 1113 note 7.
72- Fla.— <!orpus Juris cited to
Jones v. Griffin, 138 So. 38, «39, 103
Fla. 745.
33 C.J. p 111* note 8.
73. Ala,— Gray v. White, 5 Ala. 490.
74. Me.— Dennett v. Chick, 2 Me.
191, 11 AmJX 59.
33 C.J. p 1113 note 10.
75. 111.— Wilson v. Johnson, 178
IlLApp. 385.
•to m. — Mayer' v. Brensinger, 54 N.
B. 159, 180 111. 110, 72 Am.S.R.
196.
3$ C.J. P 1113 note 12.
77. Ala.— Alabama Power Co. v.
Talmadge, 93 "So. 548, 207 Ala. 86,
error dismissed 42 S.Ct 463, 259
U.S. 575, 66 L.Ed. 1071.
B.C. — Ewald v. Lane, 104 F.2d 222,
70 App.D.C. 89, certiorari denied
Lane v. Ewald, 60 S.Ct 81, 308 U
S. 568, 84 L.Bd. 477— Gale v. Inde-
pendent Taxi Owners Ass'n, 84 F<
2d 249, 65 App.D.C. $96.
Fla.— Dr. F. Phillips & Sons v. Kil-
gore, 12 So.2d 465, 152 Fla. 578 —
Stanley v. Powers, 166 -So. 843, 123
Fla. 359— Seaboard Air Line By.
Co. v. Ebert 1«* So. 104.
Ga. — Joyce v. City of Dalton, App.,
36 S.K.2d 104.
111.— Minnis v. Friend, 19-6 N.E. 191,
360 111. 328— Rome Soap Mfg. Co.
v. John T. La Forge & Sons, 54
N.B.2d 252, 322 HlJLpp. 281— Koltz
v. Jahaaske, 38 N.B.2d 973, 312
IlLApp. $23— Skala v. Lehon, 258
IlLApp. 252, affirmed 175 N.B. 832,
343 111. 602— Bunyan v. American
Glycerin Co., 230 IlLApp. 351— Hi-
bernian Banking Ass'n v. True,
228 IlLApp. 194.
Ind. — Inter State Motor Freight Sys-
tem v. Henry, 38 N.E.2d 909, 111
Ind. App. 179— Indianapolis Trac-
tion & Terminal Co. v. Holtsclaw,
81 N.B. 1084, 40 Ind.App. 311.
La. — Overstreet v. Ober, 130 So. 648,
14 La.App. 63$.
Mich. — Anderson v. Conterio, 5 N.W.
2d 572, 303 Mich. 75— Walton v.
Hymans, 4 N.W.2d 640, 302 Mich.
256.
Mo.— Raleigh v. Raleigh, App., 5 S.
W.2d 689.
Ohio.— Smith v. Fisher, App., 82 N".
B.2d 561— Ohio Power Co. v. Fit-
tro, 173 N.E. 35, 36 Ohio App. 186.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted to City of
Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 430,
431, 147 Okl. 179.
Tex. — San Antonio Gas Co. v. Sin-
gleton, 59 S.W. 920, 24 Tex.Civ.
App. $41, error refused.
33 C.J. p 1113 note 13.
79. Tex. — Taylor Water Co. v. Dil-
lard, 29 S.W. 6-62, 9 Tex.Civ.App.
6*7.
79. La.— Loussade v. Hartman, 16
La, 117.
33 C.J. p 1114 note 16 [a].
Prior to statutory change
Pa. — Polls v. Heizmann, 120 A. 269,
276 Pa. 315, 27 A.L.R. 948.
83
80. Ala.— Sloss-Sheffield Steel &
Iron Co. v. Wilkes, 181 So. 276, 236
Ala. 173— Pollard v. Rogers, 173
So. 881, 234 Ala. 92— Sloss- Shef-
field Steel & Iron Co. v. Wilkes,
165 So. 764, 231 Ala. 511, 109 A.L.
R. 385.
Cal. — Rocca v. Steinmetz, 208 P. 964,
189 Cal. 42*6.
Iowa. — Lull v. Anamosa Nat. Bank,
110 Iowa 537, 81 N.W. 784.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in City
of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418,
431, 147 Okl. 179.
Or. — Anderson v. Maloney, 225 P.
•318, 111 Or. 84.
Pa.— Stone v. City of Philadelphia,
15>3 A. 550, 302 Pa. 840— Gable v.
Yellow Cab Co., 150 A. 162, 300
Pa, 37— Carroll v. Kirk, 19 A.2d
584, 144 Pa.Super. 211— Mullen v.
McGeagh, 88 Pa. Super. 381 — Cairns
v. Spencer, 87 Pa.Super. 126 —
Brown v. George B. Newton Coal
Co., Com.PL, 28 DeLCo. 23.
Wash. — Eyak River Packing Co. v.
Huglen, 255 P. 123, 143 Wash. 229,
reheard 257 P. 638, 143 Wash. 229.
35 C.J. p 1115 note 22.
8L Mich. — Kolehmainen v. B. B.
Mills Trucking Co., S N.W.2d 298,
301 Mich. 340 — Barkman v. Mon-
tague, 298 'N.W. 273, 297 Mich. 638.
82. Cal. — Rocca v. Steinmetz, 208 P.
964, 189 Cal. 426.
Me.— Arnst v. Estes, 8 A.2d 201, 186
Me. 272.
83. Mich. — Barkman v. Montague,
298 N.W. 273, 297 Mich. 538.
84. ni.— Minnis v. Friend, 196 NJB.
191, "360 I1L 328.
35. iu.— Koltz v. Jahaaske, 38 N.B.
2d 973, 312 IlLApp. 628.
§ 35
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ties, as considered in the CJ.S, title New Trial §
12, also 46 C.J. p 78 note 31-p 80 note 55, the court
may grant a new trial to one or more of several
defendants if satisfied that they were wrongly con-
victed, and render judgment on the verdict as to
the remainder.86
The common-law rule which requires judgment
against all joint defendants or none in actions on
contracts, as considered supra § 34, has no appli-
cation to actions for torts,87 except where the ac-
tion is for a negligent performance of, or a neg-
ligent failure to perform, a duty arising out of a
contract, in which case the rule is the same as in
actions on contract, and, if a joint contract and lia-
bility are alleged, a joint liability must be shown.88
However, where the relation of the parties is such
that an issue found for one defendant necessarily
inures to the benefit of his codefendant,89 as where
a defendant's culpability is the sole predicate for
his codefendant's liability,90 judgment cannot be
entered for the former and against the latter; but
this rule has no application where each defendant
is charged with acts of negligence resulting in the
injury.91
In jurisdictions where there is a statutory right
to contribution between joint tort-feasors who are
codefendants in judgment, as considered in Con-
tribution § 11 b (5), it has been held that, where
plaintiff has consented to a voluntary nonsuit as to
one of two defendant joint tort-feasors, it is er-
roneous to render judgment against the other,92 al-
though, if the jury exculpate one of two joint
tort-feasors sued jointly, judgment may be rendered
against the other.93 In an action for fraud against
defendants jointly and severally liable therefor it is
unnecessary for the judgment to provide that re-
covery be first had as far as possible out of the
defendant primarily liable where he is hopelessly
insolvent.94
It has been held that the judgment should be
against all defendants shown to be jointly liable for
the tort;95 and in some jurisdictions it has been
held that judgment must be against all joint tort-
feasors who are not discharged.96 On the other
hand a joint judgment against joint defendants,
some of whom are not guilty, is erroneous;97 but
there is authority which holds that as to defendant
or defendants actually liable for the tort the judg-
ment is not invalid or improper.98 Under some
statutes, where the original defendants bring addi-
tional defendants into the action, asserting that they
are primarily liable, plaintiff is entitled to judgment
against them the same as though they had been di-
rectly sued by him.99
In an action for ejectment based on a tort, judg-
ment may be rendered against defendants served
who appeared, even though a default could not
properly be entered against defendants who did
not appear because of plaintiff's failure to comply
with a statute requiring him to file an affidavit that
they were not in the military service.1
§ 36. Joint or Several Judgments
a. In general
b. Under codes and practice acts
c. Disposition of case as to all parties;
separate judgments
86, 111.— Pecararo v. Halberg, 92 N.
E. 600, 246 111. 95.
33 C.J. p 1114 note 14.
87, in.— Skala v. Lehon, 258 Ill.App.
252, affirmed 175 N.E. 832, 343
111. 602.
Me.— Arnst v. Estes, 8 A.2d 201, 136
Me. 272.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in City of
Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 430,
431, 147 Okl. 179.
88, Ala. — Hackney T. Perry, 44 So.
1029, 152 Ala. 626.
33 C.J. p 1114 note 17.
89, Okl. — Anthony v. Covington, 100
P.2d 461, 187 Okl. 27.
33 C.J. p 1115 note 18.
Contract and tort natality based on
same act
Where liability of one defendant
for negligence and of another for
breach of warranty were both predi-
cated on the same tortious act, a
judgment against defendant sued for
negligence and in favor of defendant
sued for breach of warranty was
inconsistent and -erroneous. — Lang-
san v. Loft's Inc., 25 N.Y.S.2d 318.
90. 111. — Bunyan v. American Gly-
cerin Co., 230 Ill.App. 351.
Okl. — Anthony v. Covington, 100 P.
2d 461, 187 Okl. 27.
Va. — Barnes v. Ashworth, 153 S.E.
711, 154 Va. 218.
33 C.J. p 1115 note 18 [a] (3), (4).
91. 111. — Bunyan v, American Gly-
cerin Co., 230 Ill.App. 351.
92. N.Y.— -Dee v. Spencer, 251 N.Y.
S. 311, 233 App.Div. 217, followed
in 251 N.Y.S. 864, 233 App.Div.
894.
93. N.Y.— -Price v. Byan, 173 N.E.
907, 255 N.Y. 16, followed in 175
N.E. 297, 265 N.Y. 524.
94. N.Y.— Martin v. Gotham Nat
Bank, 221 N.Y.S. 661, 220 App.Div.
541, modified on other grounds 1*62
N.B. 91, 248 N.Y. 313, reargument
denied 164 N.E. 565, 249 N.Y. 513.
84
95. La. — Collins v. Huck, 109 So*
341, 161 La. 641.
6. Mo. — Delay v.
164 S.W.2d 154.
Douglas, App.,
97. Fla. — Joseph v. Maxwell, 104 So.
584, 89 Fla. 396.
98. Mo. — Hatton v. Sidman, App.,
169 S.W.2d 91.
99. Pa. — Sullivan v. City of Pitts-
burgh, 27 A.2d 270, 150 Pa.Super.
252— Ford v. City of Philadelphia,
24 A.2d 746, 148 Pa.Super. 195.
Original defendant's secondary lia-
bility immaterial
The presence or absence of the
original defendant's secondary lia-
bility cannot affect the liability of
the additional defendants to plaintiff
as found by the jury at the trial. —
Sullivan v. City of Pittsburgh, 27
A.2d 270, 150 PaJSuper. 252,
1. Cal.— B. £ B. Sulphur Co. v,
Kelley. 141 -P.2d 908, 61 Cal.App.2d
3,
49 C. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
a. In General
At common law and in the absence of statute chang-
ing the rule a joint judgment is the only proper judg-
ment in an action brought as a joint suit against sev-
eral defendants; but a joint Judgment cannot be ren-
dered against defendants whose liability is several and
not Joint or who are not ail liable.
At common law and in the absence of statute
changing the rule only a joint judgment may be
rendered in an action brought as a joint suit,2 as an
action ex contractu against several defendants.3
On the other hand, a joint judgment may not be
rendered against defendants who are severally and
not jointly liable,4 or where each defendant is not
liable to the full extent of the verdict.5 Also a
joint judgment against two or more defendants, one
of whom is not liable, is erroneous.6
In actions at common law for tort, while judg-
ment may be entered against certain defendants,
and in favor of others, as discussed supra § 35, the
judgment must be a joint judgment for one single
amount against all found liable,7 and cannot exceed
in amount that for which judgment could have been
rendered under a verdict returned against a partic-
ular defendant8
What constitutes. In determining the character
of a judgment as joint, several, or joint and sev-
eral, the circumstances with respect to the case may
be considered,9 and recourse may be had to the
pleadings on which the judgment is base<i10 The
identity of issues as between plaintiff and the vari-
ous defendants does not determine the character of
the judgment11 Ordinarily it is determined by
the nature of the liabilities or interests involved
in the litigation,12 and this is true, although in form
the judgment includes several defendants under the
form of a joint judgment.18 Thus judgments have
been held to be several where the liabilities of de-
fendants were several;14 and as joint and several
where their liabilities were joint and several,15 al-
though there is other authority to the effect that
a judgment against several defendants in an ac-
tion on a joint and several obligation is joint and
not joint and several as to all defendants therein.16
A judgment that plaintiff recover of two or more
named defendants a specified sum of money is in
form a joint judgment,17 and a judgment against
two or more named defendants, and each of them,
constitutes a joint and several judgment18 How-
ever, there is authority, particularly in jurisdictions
where by statute joint contracts have been made
joint and several and authority given to proceed
against one or more of those liable on a joint ob-
ligation, to the effect that, although a judgment is
rendered against two or more parties jointly, the
judgment itgelf is a joint and several obligation.19
b. Under Codes and Practice Acts
In general under the various codes and practice acts
the judgment should be joint, several, or joint and sev-
eral, according as. the liability of the defendants against
whom judgment .Is rendered Is joint, several, or joint and
several.
2. Fla. — Harrington v. Bowman, 148
So. 651, 106 Fla. 8*6.
Conformity to verdict or findings
see infra '§§ 55-58.
Joint or several judgment in action
against:
Executor or administrator and
other party see Executors and
Administrators § 793.
Principal and surety see the C.J.
S. title Principal and Surety §
277, also 50 C.J. p 223 notes 2-
4.
Necessity for judgment to-be either
for or against all plaintiffs see su-
pra § 31.
3. Fla. — Edgar v. Bacon, 122 So.
107, .97 Fla. 679, followed in
Wright v. Tatarian, 131 So. 183,
100 Fla. 1366.
4. Md. — Union Trust Co. of Mary-
land v. Poor & Alexander, Inc.,
177 A. 923, 168 Md. 400.
6. M<L — Union Trust Co. of Mary-
land v. Poor & Alexander, Inc.,
supra.
6. 111.— Sergo v. Bloch, 263 Ill.App.
198.
7. Mass.— Contakis v. Flavio, 108 N.
E. 1045, 221 Mass. 259.
33 C.J. p 1124 note8.
Judgment should be joint and sever-
al in civil action for conspiracy
see Conspiracy § 32.
8. Mass. — Brooks v. Davis, 1 N.E.2d
17, 294 Mass. 236.
9. Neb.— Whaley v. Matthews, 287
N.W. 205, 136 Neb. 767.
N.T.— Schultz v. U. S. Fidelity &
Guaranty Co., 94 N.E. 601, 201
N.T. 230.
Judgment held not joint
Neb.— Whaley v. Matthews, 287 N.
W. 205, 13-6 Neb. 767.
10. Tex.— U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty
Co. ,v. Richey, Civ.App,, 18 S.W-,
2d 231, error refused.
11. N.T. — -St John v. Andrews Inst.
for Girls, 85 N.E. 143, 192 N.T.
882.
12. N.T.— Schultz v. U. S. Fidelity
& Guaranty Co., 94 N.E. 601, 201
N.T. 230.
33 C.J. p 1126 note 18.
13. -Conn. — Gruber v. Friedman, 132
A. 395, 104 Conn. 107.
N.T.— Schultz v. U. S. Fidelity &
Guaranty Co., 94 NJE. 601, 201 N.
T. 230.
14. Conn. — Gruber v. Friedman, 132
A. 395, 104 Conn. 107.
33 C.J. p 1126 note 18 [b].
15. Tex.— U. S. Fidelity & Guaran-
ty Co. v. Kichey, Civ.App., 18 S.W.
2d 231, error refused.
33 C.J. p 1126 note 18 [a3 (2).
16. Mich. — Rohrabacker v. Walsh,
135 N.W. 907, 170 Mich. 59.
17. Neb. — Farney v. Hamilton
County, 75 N.W. 44t 54 :Neb. 797.
33 C.J. p 1126 note 16.
18. OkL— Tucker v. Gautier, 164 P.
2d 613.
Double recovery not indicated
Judgment that plaintiff recover of
defendants, "and each of them,"
did not signify that full amount of
recovery might be twice collected
from defendants, but simply indicat-
ed joint and several character of de-
fendant's liability.— Watson v. Hil-
ton, 166 S.E. 589, 203 N.C. 574,
19. Kan. — Corpus Juris cited in
Sloan v. Sheridan. 168 P.2d 545,
546.
33 C.J. p 1126 note 20.
Judgment as contract within statute
making joint ' contracts joint and
several see supra 5 6.
85
36
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
In general tinder the various codes and practice
acts in an action against several defendants, a joint
judgment is proper against defendants whose lia-
bility is joint or arises out of joint conduct;20 but
it is improper against defendants whose liability
is not joint, although each may be severally lia-
ble,21 or where the liability of defendants and the
measure of recovery are proportional.22
A several judgment is not ordinarily proper
against defendants whose liability is on a joint ob-
ligation or other joint cause of action;23 but such
a judgment is proper in an action against several
defendants who are liable on a joint and several ob-
ligation, or on a cause of action where each de-
fendant is liable only for his own acts, or for his
proportionate share of the total damage, or in a
different* amount from his codefendants*, or in any
case where separate actions might properly have
been maintained.24 The test as to whether a sev-
eral judgment may be had is whether a separate
action could have been maintained.26
A joint and several judgment is proper against
defendants whose liability is joint and several,26
but not against defendants who are individually
and solely liable on different items of the total
amount demanded.27
Where the items of damages are distinct, a joint
judgment cannot be entered unless each defendant
is liable to the full extent of plaintiffs demand or
recovery.28 If defendants are not all liable to the
same extent on the liability sued on, the judgment
may be for different amounts against them;29 and,
where one of the several defendants is not liable
for all the items of damage for which recovery is
allowed, a judgment against all defendants which
does not segregate the damage is erroneous,30 at
least as to the party not liable for the full amount.31
However, in an action ex contractu a joint judg-
ment has been held proper against defendants who
are liable for the same demand;32 and, if the ac-
tion is on a joint contract or obligation against sev-
eral defendants who plead and defend jointly, the
judgment against them must be joint and not sev-
eral.33
Where some defendants are liable individually,
while others are liable only in a representative ca-
20. Mo. — Kunst v. Walker, App.f 43
S.W.2d 886.
Severance of actions as to several
parties defendant see Actions §
119 b (2).
Discovery of assets
In action by administrators to
discover assets, joint judgment was
proper against defendants in joint
possession of the concealed assets.
— Kunst v. Walker, supra.
21. Ohio. — Larson v. Cleveland Ry.
Co., 50 N.E.2d 163, 142 Ohio St
20.
Pa. — First Nat. Bank v. Kendrew,
160 A. 227, 105 Pa.Super. 142.
Wash.— Argo Mfg. Co. v. Parker, 100
P. 188, 52 Wash. 100.
33 C.J. p 1125 notes 11, 12.
Harmless error
(1) Joint judgment against de-
fendants severally and not jointly
liable is harmless error. — Decker v.
Trilling, 24 Wis..610, 615—33 C.J. P
1126 note 13.
(2) In action against two defend-
ants who are each liable on different
causes sued on, one a tort and the
other an agreement of indemnity
against damages from the tort, a
joint judgment against them for
an amount not in excess of what
they would have been liable for if
sued in separate actions is not prej-
udicial to the rights of either so
as to warrant a reversal. — Adams v.
National Automobile Ins. Co., 133 P.
2d 657, 56 Cal.App.2d 905.
22. Mass. — Foote v. Cotting, 80 N.
B. 600, 195 Mass. 55, 15 L.R.A.,N.
3., -693.
23. Colo. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Beatty v. Resler, 118 P.2d 1084,
1085, 1086, 108 Colo. 434.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in City of
Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 431,
147 Okl. 179.
33 C.J. p 1117 note 27, P 1124 note
10.
Joint or several judgment in action
against stockholders for corporate
debt see Corporations § 702.
24. Gal. — Bakersfleld Impr. Co. v.
Bakersfield Theater Co., 181 P. 851,
40 Cal.App. 703.
33C.J. p 1125 note 11.
Double recovery
Judgment against treasurer and
surety for treasurer's failure to pay
unsecured deposit in insolvent state
bank and against bank and banking
commissioner for such deposit un-
der guaranty depository law was
held not erroneous as allowing dou-
ble recovery. — Bolton v. City of De
Leon, Tex.Civ.App., 283 S.W. 213.
25. Okl. — Corpus Juris guoted in
City of Sapulpa v. Toung, 296 P.
418, 431, 147 Okl. 179.
33 C.J. p 1118 note 28, p 1125, note
11 [a].
26. Cal. — Gist v. Security Trust &
Savings Bank, 24 P.2d 153, 218
Cal. 581.
Tex. — Murchison v. Ballard, Civ,
App., 178 S.W.2d 554, error re-
fused— Dunning v. Badger, Civ.
App., 74 S.W.2d 151, error dis-
missed— Danciger v. Smith, Civ.
App., 286 S.W. 635, error refused
289 S.W. 679, 116 Tex. 269, affirm-
86
ed 48 S.Ct. 344, 276 U.S. 542, 72
L.Bd. 691.
In action against carriers for in-
Jury to property where there was
evidence of damage while it was
in possession of either one of de-
fendants, and neither offered ex-
planation of how or when damage
occurred, judgment against them
jointly and severally was without
error.— St Louis, S. F. & T. By. Co.
v. J. G. Henderson Cut Stone Co.,
Tex.Civ.App., 275 S.W. 603.
Solidary judgment
In an action against several de-
fendants on an obligation in solido,
a solidary judgment against them
is proper.— E. George Rogers & Co.
v. Black, La.App., 155 So. 403.
27. Tex.— ^Btna Casualty & Surety
Co. v. State for Use and Benefit
of City of Dallas, Civ.App., 8-6
S.W.2d 826, error dismissed.
28. Vt.— Murray v. Mattison, 32 A.
479, 67 Vt. 553.
33 C.J. p 1126 note 14.
29. Or. — Closset v. Portland Amuse-
ment Co., 293 P. 720, 134 Or. 414.
30. Cal.— Bloom v. Coates, 214 P.
260, 190 Oal. 458.
31. N.M.— Niblack v. Seaberg Hotel
Co., 76 P.2d 1156, 42 N.M. 281.
32. Tex. — Weimer v. Prince &
Prince, Civ.App., 246 S.W. 666.
33. Colo.— Beatty v. Resler, 118 P.
2d 1084, 108 Colo. 434.
u— Byrd v. Babin, 200 So. 294, 196
La. 902.
33 C.J. p 1124 note 8.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
36
pacity, the judgment against them should be sever-
al34 or joint and several.35 In an action to impose
liability on heirs or devisees of a decedent for a
liability of decedent, the judgment should be sev-
eral against each defendant for the amount received
by him from decedent, not to exceed the sum to
which plaintiff is entitled ;8« and it has been' held
proper to make the judgment collectable in full from
any of several defendants who received that amount
or more from the estate and to limit it as to de-
fendants who received less to the amount each re-
ceived.3?
Under statutes in Louisiana providing therefor,
a joint judgment against several defendants in a
suit on a joint obligation must be against each de-
fendant separately for his proportion of the debt,38
which is determined by the number of obligors;39
and, where only one of several joint obligors is
sued,40 or the court erroneously rejects plaintiffs
demand against all the joint obligors, except one,41
the judgment against him must be for his aliquot
portion of the obligation and not the entire amount
thereof.
Actions ex delictu. In an action of tort against
several defendants, plaintiff is entitled to a joint
judgment if, and only if,4* he shows a joint tort43
or single cause of action against them,44 even
though one of defendants owed plaintiff a higher
degree of care than did the other;45 and, if de-
fendants plead jointly, and a joint verdict is given
against them, the judgment must be joint and not
several.46 It has also been held in some jurisdic-
tions that defendant tort-feasors must be in pari
delicto as to the tortious act and each responsible
for the entire damage for a joint judgment against
them to be proper;47 and, where a primary liabil-
ity for the injury rests on one defendant and a con-
structive or secondary liability on another defend-
ant, and their breaches of duty to plaintiff are not
through concert of action or independent but con-
current action, a joint judgment may not be ren-
dered against them.48
If the liability of defendants is joint and sev-
eral, the judgment should be joint and several ;4d
but a joint and several judgment should not be ren-
dered unless it is established that defendants were
joint tort-feasors,50 and is improper where it ap-
pears that defendants are not liable on the same
torts but are solely and independently liable on dif-
34. Ky.-^Gray v. McDowell, 5 T.B.
Mon. 501.
33 C.J. p 1126 note 15.
3&i Cal. — Gist v. Security Trust &
Savings Bank, 24 P.2d 153, 218
Cal. 581.
36. Ky. — Ransdell v. Threlkeld, 4
Bush 347.
33 C.J. p 112S note 11 [h] (1), (2).
37. Ky. — Clark's Adm'x v. Callahan,
288 S.W. 301, 216 Ky. 674.
38. La. — Loussade v. Hartman, 16
La. 117 — Hagedorn v. Klotz, App.,
185 So. 658— Simon v. Selber, 1*30
So. £45, 14 La.App. 642.
39. La. — Loussade v. Hartman, 16
La. 117.
Obligor's portion.
Each obligor answers for an equal
part of the debt, unless the parties
have expressed a different intention.
— EDagerdorn v. Klotz, La.App., 185
So. 658.
40. La. — Hagedorn v. Klotz, supra.
Plaintiff must show other obligors
where he sues joint obligor sepa-
rately, in order that the judgment
may fix the proportion of the debt
for which each defendant is con-
demned.— Hagerdorn v. Klotz, supra.
41. La. — Simon v. Selber, 190 So.
645, 14 La.App. 642.
42. Fla. — Gulf Refining Co. v. Wil-
kinson, 114 So. 503, 94 Fla. 664.
33 C.J. p 112*6 note 24.
lEssential requirement*
A "joint judgment" against two or
more tort-feasors is proper only
where, because of their relationship,
concert of action, or independent but
concurrent action, each is vicarious-
ly responsible for wrongful act of
the others to extent of entire dam-
age.— Larson v. Cleveland Ry. Co.,
50 N.E.2d 163, 142 Ohio St. 20.
Permissive joinder JinmtHoieut
The permissive joinder of defend-
ants is not enough to warrant a
"joint judgment" against tort-fea-
sors unless they are joint tort-fea-
sors.— Larson v. Cleveland Ry. Co.,
supra.
43. N.J.— Mogab v. Antrim Motor
Co., 143 A. 864, 7 N.XMisc. 15.
Pa.— Moraski v. 'Philadelphia Rapid
Transit Co., 142 A. 276, 293 Pa.
224.
33 C.J. p 1126 note 2-3.
Immaterial injury by individual
Where seepage causing injury
came principally from canal operat-
ed for joint benefit of irrigation dis-
tricts, joint judgment was proper,
although slight damage may have
been caused by seepage from reser-
voir owned by only one district —
Ketcham v. Modesto Irr. Dist., 26 P.
2d 87«, 135 CaLApp. 180.
Concert of action, by tort-feasors
makes joint judgment against them
proper. — Fahrer v. Blumenthal, 190
A. 206, 125 Pa.Super. 568.
Joint employer
In action against two companies
for injuries caused by person who
87
was employee of both, judgment
holding both companies liable in
solido was proper. — Anderson v.
George A. Hormel & Co., 136 So. 906,
18 La.App. 398.
44. Ohio. — Larson v. Cleveland Ry.
-Co., 50 N.E.2d 163, 142 Ohio St
20.
46. Pa.— Moraski v. Philadelphia
Rapid Transit Co., 142 A. 276, 293
Pa. 224.
46. Fla.— Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.
v. Ebert, 138 So. 4, 102 Fla. 641.
33 C.J. p 1127 note 28.
Judgment held against join* tort-
feasors
Findings showing that defendants
by themselves and agents acted so
negligently that plaintiff had judg-
ment showed judgment against joint
tort-feasors. — Salter v. Lombard!, 8
P.2d 38, 116 CaLApp. 602.
47. Ohio. — Larson v. Cleveland Ry.
Co., 50 N.B.2d 163, 142 Ohio St
20.
48. Ohio. — Larson v. Cleveland Ry.
Co., Supra.
Joint judgment held improper
Ohio. — Larson v. Cleveland Ry. Co.,
supra.
49. Cal. — Phipps v. Superior Court
In and for Alameda County, 89 P.
2d 698, 32 CaLApp. 2 d 371.
La.— Williams v. Pelican Natural
Gas Co., 175 So. 28, 187 La. 462.
60. Tex. — American Mortg. Corpo-
ration v. Dunnam, Civ.App., 59 S.
W.2d 1095, error dismissed.
36
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
ferent torts alleged.51 A joint judgment has been
held proper against defendants, each of whom is
responsible for the same sum of money,52 or whose
independent tortious acts produced a single injury,
objections to the trial in one proceeding having
been waived.58
Since joint tort-feasors are each individually lia-
ble to the party injured for the full extent of the
damage done, and not only for a proportionate part,
as considered in the CJ.S. title Torts § 34, also 62
CJ. p 1131 notes 52, S3, ordinarily the judgment
cannot segregate or apportion the liability of the
joint tort-feasors;54 but it must be in one amount55
and jointly and severally56 against each and all of
defendants against whom a joint liability is estab-
lished.57 However, any statutory limitation of lia-
bility applicable to any defendant, as distinguished
from the full liability of other defendants, may and
should be incorporated in the judgment entered on
the verdict;58 and, where a joint and several lia-
bility is established as to some of the defendants
and a separate liability for only a portion of the to-
tal against others, the judgment may run against
the various defendants in the amounts and accord-
ing to the liabilities established.59 Where the lia-
bility of defendant tort-feasors is direct and sev-
eral, as well as joint, a judgment for different
amounts against the various defendants has been
held not improper.60
If the jury, without fixing the total amount of
plaintiffs recovery, returns several verdicts or in
one verdict assesses each defendant separately, it
has been held that, if the same Amount was assessed
against each defendant, a joint judgment should be
entered against all defendants for that amount, not
the total,61 or, if different amounts were assessed
against the various defendants, plaintiff may enter
a joint judgment against all defendants for the
largest amount found against any of them.62 There
is other authority, however, which holds that, where
separate verdicts for different amounts are re-
turned against joint tort-feasors, the lesser amount
being against defendant who actively committed the
wrong and on whose culpability the other defend-
ant's liability is predicated, the judgment should be
for such lesser amount63 It has also been held
that, in an action on a joint tort, if the verdict
assesses each defendant separately for different
amounts, judgment cannot be rendered against all
the defendants for the total of the different
amounts.64
51. Wis.— Hall v. Frankel, 197 N.
W. 820, ia3 Wis. 247.
52. Ga.-— Regal Textile Co. v. Fell, 6
•S.E.2d 908, 189 Ga. 581.
Corporation and stockholders
Joint judgment against corpora-
tion and stockholder or officer who
appropriated all of corporation's as-
sets for amount of overpayment
made to corporation is proper.—
Regal Textile Co. y. Fell, supra.
53. Mo.— Stein v. Rainey, 286 S.W.
63, 315 Mo. 535.
54. Cal. — Phipps v. Superior Court
in and for Alameda County, 89 P.
2d 698, 32 Cal.App,2d 371— Curtis
v. San (Pedro Transp. Co., 62 P.2d
528, 10 Cal.App.2d 547,
111.— Koltz y. Jahaaske, 38 N.E.2d
973, 312 IlLApp. 62-3.
Mo. — Polkowski v. fit Louis Public
Service Co., 68 S.W.2d 884, 229
Mo.App. 24.
Tenn. — Donegan v. Beasley, 181 S.W.
2d 379, 27 Tenn.App. 369.
33 C.J. P 1127 note 30.
55. 111.— Koltz v. Jahaaske, <38 N.E.
2d 973, <312 IlLApp. 623.
Mo. — Brown v. Reorganization Inv.
Co., 166 S.W.2d 476, 350 Mo. 407—
Electrolytic Chlorine Co. v. Wal-
lace & Tiernan Co., 41 S.W.2d 1049,
328 Mo. 782, 78 A.L.R. 930— Delay
v. Douglas, App.,' 164 S.W.2d 154
— Polkowski v. St. Louis Public
Service Co., 68 S.W.2d 884, 229 Mo.
App. 24.
Tenn. — Donegan v. Beasley, 181 S.W.
2d 379, 27 Tenn.App. 369.
Tex. — Callihan v. White, Civ.App.,
139 S.W.2d 129.
56. Mass. — Gross-Loge Des Deut-
schen Ordens Der Harugari Des
Staates Massachusetts v. Cusson,
17 N.E.2d 316, 301 Mass. '332.
Tex. — Callihan v. White, Civ.App.,
139 S.W.2d 129.
Double liability not imposed
Decree requiring defendant part-
ner and an attaching creditor to pay
value of partnership assets wrong-
fully attached did not amount to
imposition of double liability. — Boy-
er v. Bowles, 37 N.E.2d 489, 310
Mass. 134.
57. Mass. — Gross-Loge Des Deut-
schen Ordens Der Harugari Des
•Staates Massachusetts v. Cusson,
17 N.B.2d -316, 301 Mass. 332. -
Mo. — Electrolytic Chlorine Co. v.
Wallace & Tiernan Co., 41 S.W.
2d 1049, 328 Mo. 782, 78 A.L.R.
930.
Tenn, — Donegan v. Beasley, 181 S.W.
2d -379. 27 Tenn.App. 369.
Tex. — Burd v. San Antonio Southern
Ry. Co., Com.App., 261 S.W. 1021.
58. Cal. — Sparks v. Berntsen, 121
P.2d 497, 19 Cal.2d 308-^Phipps v.
Superior Court in and for Alameda
County, 89 P..2d 698, 32 Cal.App.
2d <371.
59. Mass. — Gross-Loge * Des Deut-
schen Ordens Der Harugari Des
83
•Staates Massachusetts v. Cusson,
17 N.E.2d 316, 301 Mass. 332.
GO. Cal. — Guberman v. Weiner, 51
P.2d 1141, 10 Cal.App.2d 401.
61. N.T. — Farber v. Demino, 173 N.
E. 223, 254 N.T. 363, followed in G.
A. Baker & Co. v. Polygraphic Co.
of America, 193 N.B. 265, 265 N.T.
447, reargument denied 193 N.E.
294, 265 N.T. 508.
62. Cal. — Curtis v. San Pedro
Transp. Co., 52 P.2d 528, 10 Cal.
App.2d 547.
N.T.— Berber v. Demino, 173 N.E.
k 223, 254 If.T. 363, followed in G. A.
Baker & Co. v. Polygraphic Co. of
America, 193 N.E. 265, 265 N.T.
447, reargument denied 193 N.E.
294, 2-65 N.T. 508— Polsey v. Wal-
dorf-Astoria, 214 N.T.S. 600, 216
App.Div. 86.
33 C.J. p 1127 note 31.
On consolidation for trial of sep-
arate actions against master and
servant for tort, the judgment
against each defendant should be
for the highest of different amounts
assessed against the different de-
fendants by the jury. — Kinsey v.
William Spencer & Son Corporation,
300 N.T.S. 391, 165 Misc. 143, affirm-
ed 8 N.T.S.2d 529, 255 App.Div. 995,
affirmed 22 N.E.2d 168, 281 N.T. 601.
63. Ark.— Wear-tJ-Well Shoe Co. v.
Armstrong, 3 S.W.2d 698, 176 Ark.
592.
64. Miss.— Gillespie v. Olive Branch
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
36
Under some statutes several judgments may be
rendered against joint tort-feasors for separate or
proportionate amounts,65 at least where defendants
have severed in their defense, and separate verdicts
have been found against them.6^
In ejectment it has been held that, if there are
several defendants, there may be a joint judgment
against all,67 although they are severally in exclu-
sive possession of different parts of the premises,
no request for a several judgment being made;68
but there is other authority to the effect that a joint
judgment is not* proper against defendants who oc-
cupy or claim separate and distinct portions of the
realty involved,69 and that, if plaintiff is not re-
quired to elect which of several defendants in sep-
arate possession he will proceed against, judg-
ment may be rendered against each.70 Where de-
fendants plead jointly in trespass for mesne profits
but separate verdicts are found, there may be a
judgment against one and nolle prosequi as to the
other.71 Where, however, one defendant enters
subsequent to another it is error, in a joint action
of ejectment and for mesne profits, to render a
joint judgment against both from the time of the
entry of the latter.72
c. Disposition of Case as to All Parties; Sep-
arate Judgments
At common law and under statutes so providing only
one final Judgment, which must dispose of the case as
to all the parties. Is proper In an action; but, under
permissive statutes, separate judgments, may be ren-
dered at the same time or different times against the
various defendants in actions in which several Judg-
ments are proper.
At common law, and in the absence of statute
changing the rule, and under statutes expressly so
providing, only one final judgment may be entered
in an action, as discussed infra § 65, which must
completely dispose of the whole case as to all the
parties.73 The rule is applicable in tort actions74
Building & Lumber Co., 164 So. 42,
174 Miss. 154.
65. Oa. — Gormley v. Slicer, 172 S.
E. 21, 178 Ga. 85, answer conform-
ed to 172 S.E. 575, 48 Ga.App. 177.
33 C.J. p 1127 note 32.
Widow and heirs of tort»f easor
Judgment against widow and heirs
of deceased tort-feasor should be
against each separately for his pro-
portion of damages, but it may be
against them in solido for costs. — '
Hunter v. Laurent, 104 So. 747, 158
La. 874.
Counterclaim in favor of defendant
Where defendants are all liable
for full amount of damages estab-
lished and one defendant is enti-
tled to judgment on a counterclaim
against plaintiff, Judgment against
all defendants for full amount of
damages established will be award-
ed plaintiff, and also judgment will
be entered against plaintiff in favor
of the defendant entitled to the
counterclaim for the amount there-
of.— Bandych v. Ross, 26 N.Y.S.2d
830.
66. Tex. — Rowan v. Daniel, 49 S.W.
686, 20 Tex.Civ.App. 321.
33 C.J. .p 1127 note 33.
67. Dal. — Ellis v. Jeans, 26 CaL 272.
68. CaL— Ellis v. Jeans, supra,
69. Ind. — Kennedy v. Christian, 2
Ind. 503.
70. Mo.— Norton v. Reed, 161 S.W.
842, 253 Mo. 236.
71. Pa. — Chambers v. Lapsley, 7
Pa. 24.
72. Fla, — Ashmead v. Wilson, 22
Fla, 255.
73. Fla. — Merchants' & Mechanics'
Bank v. Sample, 124 So. 49, 94 Fla,
759, rehearing denied 125 So. 1,
98 Fla. 759.
Mo. — Electrolytic Chlorine Co. v.
Wallace & Tiernan Co., 41 S.W.2d
1049, 328 Mo. 782, 78 A.L.R. 930
— Neal v. Curtis & Co. Mfg. Co.,
41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo. 389— State
ex rel. Cunningham v. Haid, 40
S.W.2d 1048, 328 Mo. 208— Ex
parte Fowler, 275 S.W. 529, 310
Mo. 339— Baker v. St. Louis, 88
S.W. 74, 189 Mo. 375— Hatton v.
Sidman, App., 169 S.W.Sd 91—
A. M. Legg Shoe Co. v. Brown
Leather Co., - App., 249 S.W. 147.
Tex. — Southern Pac. Co. v. Ulmer,
Com. App., 28-6 S.W. 193 — Edmond-
son v. Carroll, Civ.App., 134 S.W.
2d 378, error dismissed, judgment
correct— Texas Life Ins. Co. v.
Miller, Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 600—
Pfeifer v. Johnson, Civ.App., 70
S.W.2d 203.
33 C.J. p 1128 note 86.
Retention of separate character for
purposes of judgment of actions
tried together see the C.J.S. title
Trial § 6, also 64 C.J. p 37 note
81.
Single or separate judgment in con-
solidated action see Actions § 113
a (5).
Defendant is entitled to a judg-
ment that will finally settle the
claims of all plaintiffs and bind all
parties, so that no suit may there-
after be made on the same cause
of action. — Caniano v. Dependable
Amusement Co., 8 A.2d 830, 123 N.J.
Law 419.
Invalidity as to person* not parties
Invalidity of portion of judgment
purporting to determine rights of
persons not parties to the action
would not affect part dealing with
defendants who were before the
court so as to render it interlocu-
tory and not final. — Wood v. Gulf
Production Co., Tex.Civ.App., 100
S.W.2d 412.
Judgment held to dispose of case as
to all parties
(1) Generally.
Mo. — Lochmoeller v. Kiel, App., 137
S.W.2d 625.
Tex, — Pfeifer v. Johnson, Civ.App.,
70 S.W.2d 203 — State v. Harvey,
Civ.App., 15 S.W.2d 82.
(2) A judgment which disposed of
all parties named in amended plead-
ings on which the trial was had was
a final judgment, even though it
failed to dispose of parties named
in supplemental pleadings who were
dismissed from the cause by failure
to name them in the amended plead-
ings subsequently filed. — Brennan v.
Greene, Tex,Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 528,
error refused.
74. Cal. — Phipps v. Superior Court
in and for Alameda County, 89
P.2d 698, 32 Cal.App.2d 371.
Ind. — Indianapolis Traction & Ter-
minal Co. v. Holtsclaw, 81 N.B.
1084. 40 Ino^App. 311.
Mo. — Brown v. Reorganization Inv.
Co., 166 S.W.2d 476, 350 Mo'. 407
— Electrolytic Chlorine Co. v. Wal-
lace & Tiernan Co., 41 S.W.2d 1049,
328 Mo. 782, 78 A.L.K. 930— Pol-
kowskl v. St. Louis Public Service
Co., 68 S.W.2d 884, 229 Mo.App.
24.
Pa, — MacHolme v. Cochenour, 167
A. 647, 109 Pa.Super. 563.
Tenn. — Donegan v. Beasley, 181 S.W.
2d -879, 27 Tenn.App. 569.
One Judgment record
There can be but one judgment
record which must include both the
judgment in favor of plaintiff
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
against joint tort-feasors,75 and in actions on joint
and several obligations which plaintiff has elected
to enforce as a joint obligation.76 It applies, even
though the rights or liabilities of a particular de-
fendant or defendants appear from the proceedings
or are determined prior to the completion of the
case,77 where the cause of action is joint and sev-
eral and defendants answer jointly,78 and however
independent of each other the respective defenses
of the various defendants may be.79 Each suit
which may be brought on the individual liability
of a number of persons jointly and severally liable
on an obligation constitutes a separate cause within
the rule against more than one final judgment in
an action.8**
Judgment should be entered as to all the defend-
ants.81 If a final judgment does not dispose of the
case as to all the defendants, it is erroneous;82
and in spme instances it has been held that a judg-
ment which does not do so is not a final judg-
ment83 but remains under the control of the court.84
However, it has been held that in tort actions such
a judgment against some only of defendants is at
most a harmless irregularity, even as to defendants
against whom alone it is rendered.85 An addi-
tional judgment entered against other defendants
after final judgment was entered against a default-
ing defendant has been held to be merely errone-
ous and voidable, and not void.86 It is unnecessary
for the judgment specifically to dispose of the rights
of all the parties, but it is sufficient if the rights
of those not specifically disposed of are disposed of
by implication.87
Ordinarily the entry of judgment against one or
more joint defendants in jurisdictions where only
one final judgment in an action is proper operates
as a discontinuance of the case as to all the others,
and merges the cause of action in the judgment,
preventing further prosecution of it against the oth-
ers in the same or subsequent actions.88 Thus, if
against defendants found liable and
that in favor of defendants found
not liable. — Hundhausen v. Bond, 36
Wis. 29.
75. Mo. — Barr v. Nafziger Baking
Co.. 41 :S.W.2d 559, 328 Mo. 423.
78. Pla. — Merchants' & Mechanics'
Bank v. Sample, 124 So. 49, 98 Fla.
759, rehearing denied 125 So. 1, 98
Fla. 759.
77. Cal. — Hanna v. De Garmo, 73 P.
830, 140 Cal. 172.
33 C.J. p 1128 note 36 [a], [d].
78. N.Y.— Reade v. Halpin, 167 N.
Y.S. 482, 180 App.Div. 161.
79. Tex. — Wooters v. Kauffman, 3
S.W. 465, 67 Tex 488— Kline v.
Power, Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 617—
Texas Cities Gas Co. v. Dickens,
Civ.App.t 133 S.W.2d 810.
80. Tex. — Comer v. Brown, Com.
App., 285 S.W. 807.
81. Cal.— Rubin v. Platt Music Co.,
268 P. 396, 92 Cal.App. 203.
82. Mo.— -Cox v. Frank L. Schaab
Stove & Furniture Co., 58 -S.W.2d
700, -332 Mo. 492, transferred, see,
App., -67 S.W.2d 790— Strawhun v.
Farrar, App., 296 S.W. 191 — Crow
v. Crow, 100 S.W. im, 124 Mo.
App. 120,
33 C.J. p 1128 note 37.
Oodefandant'g plea in issue
Judgment against one in action on
note against defendants jointly, tak-
en while other's plea of payment
was on file, was erroneous. — Mer-
chants' & Mechanics' Bank v. Sam-
ple, 124 So. 49, 98 Fla. 759, rehear-
ing denied 125 So. 1, 98 Fla. 7-69.
83. Mo. — State v. Canterbury, 101
S.W. 678, 124 Mo.App. 241.
Tex. — Martin v. Crow, 28 Tex. 613
— Gathings T. Robertson, Com.
App., 276 S.W. 218— Pfeifer v.
Johnson, Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 203.
84. Tex. — Martin v. Crow, 28 Tex.
613 — Gathings v. Robertson, Civ.
App., 264 S.W. 173, reversed on
other grounds, Com.App., 276 S.W.
218.
85. Me.— Corpus Juris cited in
Hincks Coal Co. v. Milan, 193 A.
243, 245, 135 Me. 203.
Mo. — Jackson v. City of Maiden,
App., 72 S.W.2d 850.
33 C.J. p 1128 note 39.
Beason for role
There is no contribution between
tort-feasors. — Davis v. Taylor, 41
111. 405—33 C.J. p 1128 note 40.
86. Fla. — Merchants' & Mechanics'
Bank v. Sample, 124 So. 49, 98 Fla.
759, rehearing denied 125 So. 1, 98
Fla. 759.
87. Tex. — Texas Life Ins. Co. v.
Miller, Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 600—
Traders & General Ins. Co. v. <Pool,
Civ.App., 105 S.W.2d 492, error
dismissed.
&t action "by husband and wife
Judgment for wife alone for per-
sonal injuries to her is final, being
against husband by necessary im-
plication.— Southern Pac. Co. v. Ul-
mer, Tex.Civ.App., 282 S.W. 305, af-
firmed, Com. App., 286 S.W. 193.
Judgment held by implication
(1) Generally. — Miller v. Texas
Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 123 S.
W.2d 756, error refused.
(2) There was in effect a judg-
ment for defendant bank, the judg-
ment entry showing that complaint
was amended by striking It out as
defendant, leaving only an individual
defendant, and judgment rendered
being against him alone. — Richard-
90
son v. Stinson, 100 So. 209, 211 Ala.
254.
(3) Where subject matter in con-
troversy is awarded to some of par-
ties, fact that one or more of them
get nothing is tantamount to judg-
ment against each of them. — Roe-
denbeck Farms v. Broussard, 127 S.
W.2d 168, 133 Tex. 12-6, appeal dis-
missed 60 S.Ct. 145, 308 U.S. -514, 84
L.Ed. 4*38, and Christie v. Broussard,
60 -S.Ct. 145, 308 U.S. 514, 84 L.Ed.
438— Whitmire v. Powell, 125 S.W.
889, 103 Tex. 232— Pfeifer v. John-
son, Tex.Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 203.
(4) Effect of judgment against
only one defendant is to hold others
not liable. — Obermeier v. Mortgage .
Co. Holland-America, 259 P. 1064,
123 Or. 469, modified on other
grounds 260 P. 1099, 123 Or. 469,
costs retaxed 262 P. 261, 123 Or. 469.
88. Miss. — Daves v. Mahorner, 41
Miss. 552.
N.J.— Coles v. McKenna, 76 A. 344,
80 N.XLaw 48— Turk v. Leitner,
194 A. 619, 15 N.J.Misc. '664.
33 C.J. p 1129 note 42.
Continuation of cause to final
judgment, with concurrence of all
parties except those whose pleas of
privilege to be sued in the county of
their residence had been sustained,
amounted to abandonment of cause
of action against them and their
dismissal from suit. — Brown v. Gor-
man Home Refinery, Tex.Civ.App.,
276 S.W. 787, affirmed Comer v.
Brown, Com. App., 285 S.W. 307.
In tort actions
A separate judgment against one
or more of several defendants
amounts to an informal dismissal
of the action as to the other defend-
ants.— Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co, v.
49 O.J1S.
JUDGMENTS
36
final judgment is entered against a defaulting de-
fendant,8^ or against a defendant who admits his
liability on certain items,90 it is improper to proceed
with the trial and render another and additional
judgment against other defendants.
If the rights or liabilities of a. particular defend-
ant or defendants appear from the proceedings or
are determined prior to the completion of the case,
final judgment as to such defendant or defendants
will not be entered in the action at that time, but
it will be held in abeyance until proper disposition
of the entire cause has been determined when final
judgment as to all the parties will be entered.91 If,
in such case, however, plaintiff desires to take judg-
ment against defendants whose liability has been
made to appear, he should obtain a severance of the
action into two actions, enter judgment in one, and
proceed with the other to judgment against the
defendants in that action, as discussed in Actions §
119 b (2) ; and, if judgment is entered against one
of the parties prior to severance, plaintiff must ob-
tain a vacation of the judgment and severance of
the action before he may proceed with the action
and obtain judgment against the other defendant
or defendants*9^
Separate and distinct judgments cannot be ren-
dered against defendants sued jointly,93 even where
the action is on a contract which is both joint and
several.94 Where several defendants are all liable,
but for different amounts, plaintiff must elect or
the court order which of them shall be discharged.95
In such case judgment should not be entered against
some only of the several defendants, unless plaintiff
has previously discontinued against the other de-
fendant or defendants.96
Wlwre statutes authorise separate judgments.
Separate and distinct judgments may be rendered
against the several defendants under statutes which
provide that more than one judgment or separate
judgments may be rendered in the same cause,97
or that, when a several judgment is proper, judg-
ment may be given for or against one or more of
defendants,98 or that judgment may be rendered
against any of defendants, severally, when plaintiff
would be entitled to a judgment against such de-
fendants if the action had been against them sev-
Evert, 138 So. 4, 102 Fla. 641—18 O.
J. p 1166 note 44—33 C.J. p 1129
note 41.
39. Colo. — Exchange Bank of Den-
ver v. Ford, 8 P. 449, 7 Colo. 314.
Fla.— Merchants' & Mechanics' Bank
v. Sample, 124 So. 49, 98 Fla. 759,
rehearing- denied 125 So. 1, 98 Fla.
769.
N.J.—Coles v. McKenna, 76 A. 344,
80 N.J.Law 48 — Turk v. Leitner,
194 A. 619, 15 N.J.Misc. 664.
Right to enter judgment against
thos* defendants only who have
defaulted see infra 5 191.
90. Vt.— F. S. Fuller & Co. v. Mor-
rison, 169 A. 9, 106 Vt 22.
Trustee of codefendant
Judgment is unauthorized against
trustee of codefendant against whom
Judgment on remaining items is un-
authorized.—F. S. Fuller & Co. v.
Morrison, supra.
Subsequent procedure
Oodefendant's motion to dismiss
action as against him should be
granted and judgment entered in
his favor to recover his costs, since
jurisdiction of court over action is
exhausted. — F. S. Fuller & Co. v.
Morrison, supra.
91. N.T. — Bacon v. Comstock, 11
How.Pr. 197, 199.
83 C.J. p 1128 note 86 [a], [dj.
Right to enter interlocutory judg-
ment of default where some only
of defendants default see infra §
191.
92. H.Y.— Kriser v. Bodgers, 18-6 N.
Y.S. 316, 195 App.Div. 894— Circle
Cab Corporation, v. Rizzuto, 295 N.
T.S. 185, 162 Misc. 547— Donner v.
White, 268 N.Y.S. 56, 149 Misc. 709.
Bight of final judgment In each of
separate actions after severance
see Actions S 122.
93. Ind. — Indianapolis Traction &
Terminal Co. v. Holtsclaw, 81 N.
E. 1084, 40 Ind.App. -311.
Md. — Union Trust Co. of Maryland
v. Poor & Alexander, Inc., 177 A.
923, 168 Md. 400.
Pa. — MacHolme y. Cochenour, 167 A.
647, 109 Pa.Super. 563.
Tenn. — Ponegan y. Beasley, 181 S.
W.2d 379, 27 Tenn.App. 369.
Vt. — F. S. Fuller & Co. v. Morrison,
169 A. 9, 106 Vt 22— Metropolitan
Washing Machine Co. v. Morris,
39 Vt 393.
33 C.J. p 1124 note 98.
94. Mass. — New York Trust Co. v.
Brewster, 134 N.E. 616, 241 Mass.
155.
33 C.J. p 1124 note 99.
96. Vt. — F. S. Fuller & Co. y. Mor-
rison, 169 A. 9, 106 Vt. 22— Mc-
Kane y. Gordon & Hoar, 81 A. 637,
85 Vt. 253— Powers v. Thayer, 30
Vt. 361.
Election shown
Verdict for specified total sum and
apportioning specific amount against
each of several defendants does not
authorize separate judgment against
each defendant, and plaintiff by
marking satisfied the verdict as to a
defendant who paid the amount as-.
91
sessed against her elected to have
judgment entered against such de-
fendant and hence judgments as to
the others could not stand. — Mac-
Holme y. Cochenour, 167 A. 647, 109
Pa. Super. 563.
96. Mass. — Brooks y. Davis, 1 NJB3.
2d 17, 294 Mass. 236.
97. HI.— Kulesza y. Alliance Print-
ers & Publishers, 47 N.E.2d 547,
318 IlLApp. 2-31 — Shaw v. Court-
ney, 46 N.E.2d 170, 317 Ill.App.
422, affirmed 53 N.E.2d 432, 385
111. 559.
Miss. — Aven v. Singleton, 96 So. 165,
132 Miss. 256.
Dismissal, discontinuance, nolle
proseaui, or nonsuit as to some of
several codefendants see Dismiss-
al and Nonsuit §§ 30-32, 52, 77 a.
Actions in which statute applicable
Statute authorizing more than one
judgment in action on contract
against several defendants is Inap-
plicable to action against several
defendants based on theory of tort
liability. — Springer Transfer Co. . y.
Board of Com'rs of Bernalillo Coun-
ty, 94 P.2d 977, 43 N.M. 444.
On New trial
Separate judgments may be enter-
ed against several defendants on
new trial after judgment entered
against them as a unit has been set
aside.— Fredrich v. Wolf, 50 N.B.2d
755, -383 I1L 638.
98. Ariz. — Bracker Stores v. Wil-
son, 103 F.2d 253, 55 Ariz. 403.
§ 36
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
erally." Also, where the statutes provide therefor,
the court, in its discretion, may render judgment
against one or more of several defendants, leaving
the action to proceed against the others, whenever
a several judgment may be proper.1 A statute au-
thorizing judgment against fewer than all of sev-
eral defendants sued does not authorize the entry
of separate and distinct judgments against the vari-
ous defendants.2
Under statutes authorizing separate judgments,
where it appears, either from the proceedings or
during the progress of the case, that a several judg-
ment is proper as to one or more defendants, the
court may render a judgment for or against him
or them, in advance of the final trial, leaving the
action to proceed against the other defendants,8
including defendants who were not served with
process at that time,4 and defendants as to whom
an appeal against an improper dismissal is pend-
ing.5 If no sufficient case is stated against one of
several defendants, a final judgment may be en-
tered disposing of the case as to him;6 or separate
judgments may be entered at the conclusion of the
trial against defendants who could have been sued
severally.7 If the action is such that a several
judgment would be proper, as where it is brought
to enforce liability for tort,8 or on a contract which
is both joint and several,** judgment may be ren-
dered against any one or more of defendants sued,
without affecting or barring the remedy, at what-
ever stage of the case their several liability is made
to appear, as where such party suffers a default, as
discussed infra § 191, or submits to judgment by an
offer, infra § 184, or consent, infra § 178, or con-
fesses judgment, infra §§ 144, 164, or where plain-
tiff is entitled to such judgment on the allegations
and admissions in the pleadings, as discussed in the
CJ.S. title Pleading § 433, also 49 CJ. p 676 notes
89, 90. Also, under various statutes, it has been
held proper to render separate judgments against
each defendant where each is liable for only a pro-
portionate amount of the total recovery,10 or where
the liability of each, as expressed in the contract
sued on, is several and differs in extent propor-
tionate to the respective and different interests of
each,11 or where independent acts of tort-feasors
99. Ind.— Hassler v. Hefele, 50 N.
E. 361. 151 Ind. 391.
1. Cal. — Trans-Pacific Trading Co.
v. Patsy Frock & Romper Co., 209
P. 357, 189 Cal. 509— Weisz v. Mc-
Kee, 87 P.2d 379, 31 Cal.App.2d
144, rehearing denied 88 P.2d 200,
31 Cal.App.2d 144 — Huntoon v.
Southern Trust & Commerce Bank,
290 P. 86, 107 CaLApp. 121.
N.J. — Ordinary of State v. Bastian,
5 A.2d 463, 17 N.J.Misc. 105.
Okl. — Howell v. Hart, 69 'P.2d 1043,
180 Okl. 397— Corpus Juris cited in
Corley v. French, 293 P. 177, 178,
146 Okl. 29.
Or. — Fischer v. Bayer, 210 P. 452,
108 Or. 311.
33 C.J. p 1129 note 4-3.
In Iroulsiana
Where two parties are sued, one
for the payment of a note as maker,
and the other for illegally retaining
it, the causes of action being dis-
tinct, judgment may well be had
against one and the case continued
as to the other. — Regillo v. Lorente,
7 La. 140.
2. Pa. — MacHolme v. Cochenour,
167 A. 647, 109 Pa.Super. 563.
Vt. — Metropolitan Washing Machine
Co. v. Morris, 39 Vt 393.
3. Cal. — Trans-Pacific Trading Co.
v. Patsy Frock & Romper Co., 209
OP. 357, 189 Cal. 609 — Huntoon v.
Southern Trust & Commerce Bank,
290 P. 86, 107 CaLApp. 121— Park-
er v. Hardistfr, 202 P. 479, 54 Cal.
App. 628.
Ga.— Bank of Madison v. Bell, 118
S.E. 439, 30 GteuApp. 458.
Minn. — Bank of Commerce v. Smith,
59 N.W. 311, 57 Minn. 374.
N.J. — Ordinary of State v. Bastian,
5 A.2d 463, 17 J^.J.Misc. 105.
Okl. — Howell v. Hart, -69 P.2d 1043,
180 Okl. 397.
33 C.J. p 1129 note 44.
Subsequent judgment under cross
petition
Ky. — Culton v. Couch, 20 S.W.2d 451,
230 Ky. 586.
Specific order for continuance un-
necessary
The court need not specifically re-
serve its Jurisdiction as to other de-
fendants as to whom judgment is
not rendered, but such Jurisdiction
continues automatically. — Howell v.
Hart, 69 P.2d 1045, 180 Okl. 397.
Action on contractor's bond
Under Heard Act which contem-
plates presentation of all claims un-
der a contractor's bond in a single
action, which is to proceed as a sin-
gle case, separate final judgments
may be entered on the claims of
the different claimants where so to
enter them cannot prejudice the oth-
er claimants or the surety, as where
the total of all the claims does
not exceed the penalty of the bond.
— Royal Indemnity Co. v. Woodbury
Granite Co., 101 F.2d 689, 69 App.D.
C. 364, certiorari dismissed 60 S.Ct.
63, 308 U.S. 628, 84 L.Bd. 524.
4. Cal. — Corbin v. Howard, 215 P.
920, 61 CaLApp. 715.
Minn.— First Nat. Bank of Wabasha
v. Burkhardt, 73 N.W. 858, 71
Minn. 185.
Okl.— Howell v. Hart, 69 P.2d 1043,
180 Okl. 397.
5. Ark. — Berryman v. Cudahy Pack-
ing Co., 87 S.W.2d 21, 191 Ark.
533.
Statute held inapplicable
Statute providing that, in actions
other than on contract wherein sum-
mons has been served on some only
of defendants, plaintiff may demand
a trial as to only some of defend-
ants on discontinuing action as to
others does not apply to prevent
judgment against defendant after
reversal on appeal of erroneous or-
der quashing service of process as
to him, where judgment was taken
against his codefendant pending the
appeal. — Berryman v. Cudahy Pack-
ing Co., supra.
6. Cal.— Weisz v. McKee, 87 P.2d
379, rehearing denied 88 P.2d 200,
31 Cal.App.2d 144— Huntoon v.
Southern Trust & Commerce Bank,
290 P. 86, 107 CaLApp. 121.
7. S.D. — Western Twine Co. v.
Wright, 78 N.W. 94$, 11 S.D. 521,
.44 L.R.A. 438.
8. Cal. — McNeely v. Los Angeles
County Super. Ct, 173 P. 102, 36
Cal.App. 602.
9. N.J. — Ordinary of State v. Bas-
tian, 5 A.2d 46-3, 17 N.J.Misc. 105.
33 C.J. p 1129 note 47.
10. Ark.— Fidelity OPheniac Fire Ins.
Co. v. Friedman, 174 S.W. 215, 117
Ark. 71.
11. Colo.— Irwiu v. Wood, 4 P. 783,
7 Colo. 477.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
36
have combined to cause plaintiffs injury and sep-
arate verdicts against each for varying amounts
have been returned.12
On the other hand, if the cause of action sued
on is such that the judgment must be joint and
under the circumstances the case is not a proper
one to go to judgment against one of the defend-
ants liable, the court cannot properly render judg-
ment against any of those defendants whose lia-
bility has been made to appear,1^ although the en-
try of judgment as to some of the defendants prior
to final trial is not error of which the other de-
fendants may complain, where it does not prejudice
any defense, set-off, or counterclaim of theirs.14 It
has also been held that separate judgments are per-
missible only where the substantive law controlling
the case is such as to impose several separable and
different respective liabilities on defendants.15
The entry of a separate judgment against one or
more defendants, under a statute authorizing it,
does not merge the cause of action, as at common
law, and prevent the further pursuit of judgment
against the other defendants.16 It is not binding
on the other defendants ;17 but it operates as a sev-
erance of the cause of action, and after such judg-
ment the issues made by the remaining defendants
are to be heard and determined as if they had been
sued alone.18 On such final trial, a judgment may
be rendered against the remaining defendant for the
whole or such part of the cause of action as may
be proved against him.19 It is no objection that
the various judgments are for different amounts.20
Separate judgments against different defendants
have been converted into one judgment against all
the defendants in solido in order to fix the obliga-
tion inter se.21
On new trial as to some of codefendants. In ju-
risdictions where separate judgments against code-
fendants are authorized, separate judgments may
be recovered where some of the defendants, after a
joint judgment against them, obtain a new trial;22
but, in jurisdictions where only one final judgment
may be entered in an action, it has been held that,
where a new or further trial is found necessary as
to one defendant and the case has been correctly
tried as to another, the case will be held in abey-
ance as to the latter until after the new trial and
then one final judgment entered,23 or it will be re-
tried as to such defendant on the issue of amount
of liability only.24
12. 111.— Martin v. Blackburn, 38 N. ]
B.2d 939, 312 IlLApp. 549.
13. Mich. — Rimmele v. Huebner, 157
N.W. 10, 190 Mich. 247.
33 C.J. p 1129 note 45.
In action on contract which is
joint only, and not joint and several,
a several judgment against some of
defendants cannot be rendered be-
fore final trial, as it cannot be de-
termined until such trial whether
or not a several judgment is proper.
— Hempy v. Hansom, 33 Ohio St.
312— Aucker v. Adams, 23 Ohio St.
543.
14. Ohio. — Hempy v. Ransom, 83
. Ohio St. -312.
33 C.J. p 1128 note 38.
15. Miss.— Gillespie v. Olive Branch
Building & Lumber Co., 164 So. 42,
174 Miss. 154.
16. N.J. — Ordinary of State v. Bas-
tian, 5 A.2d 463, 17 N.J.Misc. 105.
33 C.J. p 1129 note 54.
Stockholders statutory liability
(1) In an action against the reg-
istered owner of stock of an in-
solvent bank to enforce the stock-
holder's statutory liability for the
bank's debts, judgment may be ob-
tained against one discovered to be
the real owner of the stock after
judgment had been rendered against
the registered owner, where the
court had reserved jurisdiction of
the cause. — Reconstruction Finance
Corporation v. Pelts, 0,<VUU., 123
F.2d 503, certiorari denied Pelts v. (
Reconstruction Finance Corporation,
62 S.Ct 796, 315 U.S. 812, 86 L.Ed.
1210 — Ericson v. Slomer, C.C.A.I11.,
94 F.2d 437.
(2) The relationship between the
real owner and the registered own-
er of the stock is that of trustee
and cestui due trust and not that
of undisclosed principal and agent. —
Reconstruction Finance Corporation
v. Pelts, C.C.A.I11., 123 F.2d 503, ceT-
tiorari denied Pelts v. Reconstruc-
tion Finance Corporation, 62 S.Ct.
796, 315 U.S. 812, 86 L.Ed. 1210.
17. Kan.— Davis v. Deal, 222 P. 68,
115 Kan. 12.
18. Ohio.— Hempy v. Ransom, 33
Ohio St. 3JL2.
Character of proof required
Plaintiff must establish the alle-
gations of his petition by proof of
the same character and of the same
degree as though each of defendants
were defending. — Davis v. Deal, 222
P. 68, 115 Kan. 12.
19. Iowa. — Smith v. Coopers, 9 Iowa
376.
Ohio. — Hempy v. Ransom, 33 Ohio
St 312.
20. Cal.— Cole v. Roebling Constr.
Co., 105 P. 255, 156 CaL 443.
21. La.— Rosenberg v. Derbes, 109
•So, 841, 161 La. 1070.
22. Cal.— Knight v. Gosselin, 12 P.
2d 454, 124 CaLApp. #90.
33 C.J. p 1126 note 19.
93
No double obligation
The second judgment does not
create a double obligation. — Knight
v. Gosselin, supra.
23. Mo. — Electrolytic Chlorine Co.
v. Wallace & Tiernan Co., 41 S.W.
2d 1049, 328 Mo. 782, 78 A.L.R.
930— Neal v. Curtis & Co. Mfg.
Co., Mo., 41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo.
389.
Tex. — Alexander v. Meredith, Civ.
App., 154 S.W.2d 920, certified
questions dismissed 152 S.W.2d
732, 137 Tex. 37.
Right of appellate court to affirm
as to some defendants and re-
verse as to others see Appeal and
Error §§ 1919-1922.
Retrial on reversal as to some of de-
fendants
Where, on appeal, a case is affirm-
ed as to some of defendants and re-
versed and sent back for retrial as
to others, the judgment on the first
trial, as it was affirmed, and the
judgment on the retrial have been
held to constitute one final judgment
so as not to violate the statute
against more than one final judg-
ment in a case.
Mo.— Snuff v. Kansas City, 282 S.W.
128, 221 Mo.App. 505.
Tex. — Compton v. Jennings Lumber
Co., Civ.App., 295 S.W. 308. -
24. Mo. — Barr v. Nafzlger Baking
Co., 41 S.W.2d 559, 328 Mo. 423 —
Polkowski v. St, Louis Public
§ 36
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Interested person not a party litigant. The mere
fact that a judgment is not res judicata to an inter-
ested person who is not a party litigant does not
prevent the court from rendering a judgment which
is final and res judicata as to all the parties to the
proceeding.2^
§ 37.
Relief between Codefendants
Judgment determining the ultimate rights of de-
fendants as between themselves Is authorized under va-
rious codes and practice acts, but such a judgment is not
authorized at common law.
At common law, and in the absence of statute
changing the rule, one defendant to a suit cannot
recover a judgment against a codefendant, because
the issue is as to the liability of defendants, or ei-
ther of them, to plaintiff, and not as to the liability
of defendants as between themselves;26 if one de-
fendant is entitled to contribution, indemnity, or
other relief against his codefendant, it must be
obtained in an independent action.2? As between
codefendants, nothing is adjudicated by a joint
judgment against them, as considered infra § 440,
although in equity a decree between codefendants
may be rendered in proper cases, as considered in
Equity § 603.
Under codes and practice acts, affirmative relief
may be granted as between defendants in relation
to the subject matter of the action,28 on proper
pleadings and procedure in accordance with the
statute,29 it being usually provided that a judgment
may determine the ultimate rights of the parties on
the same side as between themselves.30 Such relief
may be granted, even though as between the vari-
ous litigants the issues are contractual as to one and
tortious as to the other.31
Such a statute, however, does not make codefend-
ants adversaries.32 It permits the determination of
questions of primary and secondary liability between
joint tort-feasors,33 but it does not authorize judg-
ment as to matters not connected with the subject
of plaintiffs action.34 The judgment authorized
is only such as is responsive to the issues in plain-
tiffs action and incidental to defendant's defense
therein,36 as a defendant is not authorized to in-
ject into plaintiff's suit an independent suit, either
at law or in equity, against his codefendant, not
necessary or germane to his defense to plaintiffs
suit,36 unless a statute authorizes the determination
of particular issues.37 Under some statutes, where
a defendant is impleaded as being ultimately liable,
the judgment against such defendant should be in
favor of the original defendant and not in favor
of plaintiff, whose judgment should be against the
original defendant.38 Service of process, or notice
of some sort, as by service of a copy of the answer
or cross complaint praying such relief, is essential
to the validity and regularity of a judgment in fa-
vor of one defendant against his codefendant.39
Service Co., 68 S.W.2d 884, 229
Mo.App. 24.
25. La. — Parish of Jefferson v.
Texas Co., 189 -So. 580, 192 La.
934, certiorari denied Texas Co. v.
•Parish of Jefferson, «0 S.Ct. 138,
308 U.S. 601, 84 L.Ed. 503.
26. Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Cauble v. Cauble, Cir.App., 283 S.
W. 914, 919, 920.
33 C.J. p 1131 note 63.
27. Tex. — Corpus Juris Quoted In
Cauble v. Cauble, Civ.App., 28S
S.W. 914, 919, 920.
33 C.J. p 11-31 note 64.
Right to judgment for:
Contribution between defendant
tort-feasors see Contribution §
13 g.
Indemnity see Indemnity § 28.
28. Mo. — Merz v. Tower Grove
Sank & Trust Co., 130 S.W.2d 611,
344 Mo. 1150.
N.Y. — Weiner v. Mager & Throne, 3
N.Y.S.2d 918, 167 Misc. 338— Cohen
v. Dugan Bros., 235 N.T.S. 118, 134
Misc. 155.
Pa.— -Ford v. City of Philadelphia, 24
A.2d 746, 148 Pa.Super. 195.
Tex.— Corpus Juris quoted in Cauble
v. Cauble, Civ.App., 283 S.W. 914,
919, 920.
33 C.J. p 1131 note 67.
29. Mo.— Scheer v. Trust Co. of St.
Louis, 49 S.W.2d 135, 330 Mo. 149.
Tex.— Corpus Juris guoted in Cauble
v. Cauble, Civ.App., 283 S.W. 914,
919, 920.
30. N.C. — Montgomery v. Blades, 9
S.B.2d 397, 217 N.C. 654.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Cauble
v. Cauble, Civ.App., 283 S.W. 914,
919, 920.
31. N.Y. — Weiner v. Mager &
Throne, 3 N.Y,S.2d 918, 167 Misc.
5'38.
32. Mo.— Merz v. Tower Grove Bank
& Trust Co., 130 S.W.2d 611, 344
Mo. 1150.
33. N.C. — Montgomery v. Blades, 9
S.E.2d 397, 217 N.C. 654.
34. N.C. — Montgomery v.
supra.
Blades,
35. Mo. — Merz v. Tower Grove
Bank & Trust Co., 130 S.W.2d 611,
344 Mo. 1150 — Missouri Dist Tel-
egraph Co. v. Southwestern Bell
Telephone Co., 79 S.W.2d 257, 336
Mo. 453 — Scheer v. Trust Co. of
94
St Louis, 49 S.W.2d 135, 330 Mo.
149.
Relief not authorized
In innocent holder's suit on note,
makers could not obtain relief for
payments made to payees and not
credited on note. — Cohen v. Daily,
Mo.App., 52 S.W.2d 199.
36. Mo. — Merz v. Tower Grove
Bank & Trust Co., 130 S.W.2d 611,
344 Mo. 1150— Missouri Dist Tel-
egraph Co. v. Southwestern Bell
Telephone Co., 79 S.W.2d 257, 3'36
Mo. 453.
Equities not affecting' plaintiff's
tights cannot be adjudicated. — Cohen
v. Daily, Mo.App., 52 S.W.2d 199.
37. Mo. — Early v. Small wood, 256
S.W. 1053, 302 Mo. 92.
38. N.T. — Otis Elevator Co. v. Mil-
ler, 216 N.Y.S. 320, 127 Misc. 421.
39. Tex. — Stokes Bros. & Co. v.
Kramer, Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d 822 —
Corpus Juris quoted in Cauble v.
Cauble, Civ.App., 283 S.W. *14,
919, 920.
33 C.J. p 1152 note 70.
Process, notice, or appearance see
supra §§ 23-26.
49 C.J.S.
§ 38. Nominal Parties
Ordinarily Judgment should be fn the name of a
nominal or formal party, but It Is proper to show there-
in the real party In Interest.
In general judgment must be entered in the name
of plaintiff, although for the use and benefit of an-
other,4^ and, if entered in favor of the beneficiary
alone, it is irregular and erroneous.41 Where the
real parties in interest will be estopped from again
asserting the claim in suit, judgment in the name of
a nominal party is not error.42 However, under
statutes requiring that actions be .prosecuted in the
name of the real party in interest, it has been held
that judgment may not be rendered in favor of a
JUDGMENTS
§ 40
plaintiff who fails to show any remedial interest
in himself, even though defendant has contested
the case on the merits.43 It has been held that a
pro forma plaintiff cannot recover.44 Judgment
may be rendered against a defendant, although he
is only a nominal or formal party,45 but the judg-
ment properly should discriminate between the ac-
tual defendants charged with liability and mere
nominal or unnecessary defendants not under any
liability to plaintiff.46 In an action against a hus-
band in which his wife, without having been served
with a summons, was made a nominal party defend-
ant on plaintiff's motion, a judgment against her is
voidable.4?
D. PLEADINGS, ISSUES, EVIDENCE, VERDICT, AND FINDINGS TO SUSTAIN JUDGMENT
§ 39. Pleadings
The necessity and sufficiency of pleadings
port a judgment are considered infra §§
Examine Pocket Parts for later cases.
§ 40. Necessity and Sufficiency
a. Necessity
b. Sufficiency
to sup-
40, 41.
a. Necessity
Subject to certain exceptions, pleadings have been
held essential to the regularity of a Judgment.
While exceptions may occur in respect of judg-
ments by confession or consent, under principles
discussed infra §§ ISO, 151, 174, as a general rule
pleadings are essential to support the judgment of
a court of record,48 and are as necessary a basis for
a valid judgment as is evidence.4^ In this connec-
40. HI.— McCormick v. Fulton, 19
111. 570.
83 C.J. p 1132 note 72.
41. 111.— -Hobson v. Mc'Cainbridge, 22
N.B. 823, 1-30 111. -367.
42. Okl. — American Surety Co. of
New York v. Marsh, 293 P. 1041,
146 Okl. 261.
Wash. — Weaver v. Heaton, 4 P.2d
521, 164 Wash. 674.
43. Alaska. — In re Nagao, 4 Alaska
678.
Ky.— Lytle v. Lytle, 2 Mete. 127.
44. Tex. — Lucas v. Dallas County,
Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 179-r Hill v.
Kelsey, Civ.App., 89 S.W.2d 1017
— Avenel v. Iskovitz, Civ.App., 50
S.W.2d 895.
45. Tex. — Harris v. Musgrove, 59
Tex. 401.
46. Ky. — Cincinnati H. & P. B. Co.
v. Spratt, 2 Duv. 4.
La.— Morries v. Zelter, 4 La.A., Or-
leans, 411.
47. .(Pa. — Rawlings v. Lewert, 9 Pa,
Disk & Co. 701, 28 Lack.Jur. 15,
75 Pittsb.Leg.J. 111.
48. Ala. — Brue v. Vaughn, 2 So.2d
396, 241 Ala. 322.
Ky. — Howard v. Howard, 94 S.W.2d
652, 264 Ky. 311.
l£u — Bank of White Castle v. Baker,
139 So. 648, 174 La. 17.
Or.— Haberly v. J>armers' Mut Fire
Relief Ass'n, 294 P. 5$4, 13 Or.
32.
Tex. — City of Fort Worth v. Gause,
101 S.W.2d 221, 129 Tex. 25— Coh-
en v. City of Houston, Civ.App.,
185 S.W.2d 450 — Ston« v. Boone,
Clv.App., 160 S.W.2d 578, error re-
fused—Knox v. Lyarels, Civ.App.,
155 S.W.2d 435, error refused-
Thomas v. Mullins, Civ.App., 127
S.W.2d 559, reversed on other
grounds Mullins v. Thomas, 150 S.
W.2d 83, 136 Tex. 215— Vassiliades
v. Theophiles, Civ.App., 115 S.W.
2d 1220, error dismissed — Texas
& N. O. R. Co. v. Whisenant, Civ.
App., 105 S.W.2d 706— Harris v.
Goodloe, Civ.App., 58 S.W.2d 156,
reversed on other grounds Goodloe
& Meredith v. Harris, 94 S.W.2d
1141, 127 Tex. -583— Bstes v. Hart-
ford Accident & Indemnity Co.,
Civ.App., 46 S.W.2d 413, error re-
fused— Matrimonial Mut Ass'n of
Texas v. Rutherford, Ctv.App., 41
S.W.2d 719, error dismissed — Cisco
& N. E. R. Co. v. Ricks, Civ.App.,
3«3 S.W.2d 878 — Smoot & Smoot v.
Nelson, Civ. App., 11 S.W.2d 578—
Connellee v. Witty, Civ. App., 246
S.W. 715.
Utah. — Upper Blue Bench Irr. Dist.
v. Continental Nat Bank & Trust
Co., 72 P.2d 1048, 93 Utah 325—
Stockyards Nat. Bank of South
Omaha v. Bragg, 245 P. 966, 67
Utah 60.
Va.— Porks v.' Wiltbank, 14 S.E.2d
281, 177 Va. 461.
Wis.— Stellmacher v. •Sampson, 219
N.W. 343, 195 Wis. 635.
33 OT. p 1132 note 80. '-• "
95
"There is no principle better set.
tied than that a judgment or decree
cannot he entered in the absence of
pleadings upon which to found the
same." — Rhodes v. Sewell, 109 So.
179, 180, 21 Ala^App. 441.
Matters occurring* pendent* lite
are not adjudicated by the judgment
unless brought before the court by
supplemental pleading. — Grand Un-
ion Hotel v. Industrial Accident
Commission, 226 P. 948, 67 CaLApp.
123.
Where no pleading's were filed in
"behalf of Interveners, a judgment in
their favor could not be sustained
on direct atta-ck on appeal. — Howe v.
Keystone (Pipe & Supply Co., 274 S.
W. 563, 115 Tex. 158, motion for re-
hearing overruled 278 S.W. 177, 115
Tex. 158.
49. Ky. — Consolidation Coal Co. v.
King, 244 S.W. 303, 196 Ky. 54.
Tenn. — Poster v. Andrews, 189 S.W.
2d 580.
Tex. — Street v. Cunningham, Civ.
App., 156 S.W.2d 541— Lone Star
Gas Co. v. Holifleld, Civ.App., 160
S.W.2d 282— Birdville Independent
School Dist. v. Deen, Civ.App., 141
•S.W.2d 680, affirmed Deen v. Bird-
ville Independent School Dist., 159
S.W.2d 111, 138 Tex. 339— Adams
v. Impey, Civ. App., i31 S.W.2d
288 — Shell Petroleum Corporation
v. Liberty Gravel & Sand Co., Civ.
App., 128 S.W.2d 471— Forman v.
Barron, CivJLpp., 120 S.W.2d 827.
§ 40
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
tion it has been said that courts have no power to
render judgment until their action is called "into
exercise by pleadings,60 that the court lacks juris-
diction of the subject matter or controversy in the
absence of pleadings,51 and that a judgment ren-
dered without pleadings in support thereof is funda-
mentally erroneous,52 a nullity,63 and void64 rather
than voidable.65 Where pleadings are lost, judg-
ment should not be rendered until they have been
restored.66
A declaration, petition, or complaint is essential to
the regularity of a judgment,57 and it has been held
that such a pleading is essential to the court's ju-
risdiction to enter judgment,68 and that its absence
will render the judgment void,59 although objection
to the absence of such a pleading may be waived.60
Aside from judgments by confession, consent, or de-
fault, as discussed infra §§ 150, 151, 174, 199, a
plea or answer may be essential to the regularity of
a judgment.61 Where the initial pleading has been
filed in one division of a court, and the answer is
filed in a different division, the former has been
held to lack jurisdiction to enter judgment.62
b. Sufficiency
The pleadings should be sufficient to support the
error refused — Fidelity & Deposit
Co. of Maryland v. Citizens Nat.
Bank of Lubbock, Civ.App., 120 -S.
W.2d 113, error dismissed — Shack-
elford v, Neilon, Civ.App., 100 S.
W.2d 1037— Shambaugh v. Ander-
son, Civ.App., 92 -S.W.2d 530, error
dismissed — Traders & General Ins.
Co. v. Lincecum, Civ.App., 81 S.W.
2d 549, reversed on other grounds
107 -S.W.2d 585, 130 Tex. 220— Karr
v. Cockerham, Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d
905, error dismissed — Texas Co. v.
Wright, Civ.App., 47 S.W.2d 487 —
Gause-Ware Funeral Home v. Mc-
Ginley, Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 433,
error refused— Casualty Recipro-
cal Exchange v, Allesandro, Civ.
App., 34 S.W.2d 636— Humble Oil
& Refining Co. v. Southwestern
Bell Telephone Co., Civ.App., 2
S.W.2d 488— Flagg v. Matthews,
Civ.App., 287 S.W. 299.
Va.— Potts v. Mathieson Alkali
Works, 181 S.E. 521, 165 Va. 196.
33 C.J. p 1141 note 54.
Evidence as essential to support
judgment see infra § 44.
A judgment cannot rest on evi-
dence alone unsupported by plead-
ing, unless there has been a waiver
by opposite party. — Howard v. How-
ard, 94 S.W.2d 652, 264 Ky. 311.
Proof cannot supply omissions in
allegations
Ala. — Brue v. Vaughn, 2 So.2d 396,
241 Ala. 322.
A Judgment entered on evidence
without pleadings is as fatally de-
fective as a judgment on pleadings
without supporting evidence. — Stone
v. Boone, Tex.Civ.App., 160 'S.W.2d
578, error refused — -Rudolph v.
Smith, Tex.Civ.App.. 148 -S.W.2d 225.
50. Ala.— Rhodes v. Sewell, 109 So.
179, 21 Ala.App. 441.
Tex. — Dunlap v. Southerlin, 63 Tex.
38— Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland v. Citizens Nat. Bank of
Lubbock, Ci<v.App., 120 S.W.2d 113,
error refused— Continental South-
land Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Pan-
handle Const. Co,, Civ.App., 77 S.
W.2d 896, error refused — Moore v.
Jones, Civ.App., 278 S.W. 326 — Con-
nellee v. Witty, Civ.App., 246 S.W.
715.
51. Mo. — Owens v. McCleary, App.,
273 S.W. 145.
XJtah.— Cooke v. Cooke, 248 P. 83, 67
trtah 371.
'It is fundamental that a petition
or pleading of some kind is the ju-
ridical means of investing a court
with Jurisdiction of subject-matter
to adjudicate it." — Stockyards Nat.
Bank of South Omaha v. Bragg, 245
P. 966, 973, 67 Utah 60.
52. Tex.— City of Fort Worth v.
Gause, 101 S.W.2d 221, 129 Tex.
25 — Rudolph v. -Smith, Civ.App.,
148 S.W.2d 225— Williams v. Sin-
clair-Prairie Oil Co., Civ. App., 135
S.W.2d 211, error dismissed, judg1-
ment -correct — State v. Howe, Civ.
App., 91 S.W.2d 487— Penrod v.
Von Wolff, Civ.App., 90 S.W.2d
859 — Jones v. Womack-Henning &
Rollins, Civ.App., 53 S.W.2d 635
— Short v. Stephens, Civ.App., 44
S.W,2d 466.
63. Utah.— Cooke v. Cooke, 248 P.
83, 67 Utah 371.
54. Ala.— Rhodes v. Sewell, 109 So.
179, 21 Ala.App. 441.
Colo. — Hough v. Lucas, 230 P. 789,
76 Colo. 94.
Fla.— Lovett v. Lovett, 112 So. 768,
93 Fla. 611.
Mont. — Oregon Mortg. Co. v. Kun-
neke, 245 P. 539, 76 Mont. 117.
Tenn. — Lewis v. Burrow, 127 S.W.2d
795, 23 Tex.App. 145.
Tex. — Jackson v. Slaughter, Civ.App.,
185 S.W.2d 759, refused for want
of merit — Ritch v. Jarvis, Civ.
App., 64 S.W.2d 831, error dis-
missed— Davis v. Sloan Lumber
Co., Civ.App., 37 S.W.2d 225— Mills
v. Moore, Civ.App., 295 S.W. 297
—Hart v. Hunter, 114 S.W. 882,
52 Tex.Civ.App. 75.
Va.— 'Potts v, Mathieson Alkali
Works, 181 S.E. 521, 165 Va. 196.
W.Va. — Kesterson v. "Brown, 119 S.
B. 677, 94 W.Va, 447— Waldron v.
Harvey, 46 S.E. 603, 54 W.Va. 608,
102 Am.S.R. 959.
33 C.J.. p 1132 note 83—34 C.J. p 561
note 7.
96
55. W.Va. — Kesterson v. Brown, 119
S.E. 677, 94 W.Va. 447— Waldron
v. Harvey, 46 S.B. 60-3, -54 W.Va.
608, 102 Am,S.R. 959.
56. Tex. — Watson Co., Builders, v.
Bleeker, Civ.App., 285 S.W. 637.
33 C.J. p 1133 note 94.
57. Tex. — Safety Casualty Co. v.
McGee, Civ.App., 93 S.W.2d 519,
affirmed 127 S.W.2d 176, 133 Tex.
233, 121 A.L.R. 126Q— Kentucky Oil
Corporation v. McCandless, Civ.
App., 300 S.W. 972.
33 C.J. p 1132 notes 85, 87.
58. Utah.— State v. Cragun, 20 P.2d
247, 81 Utah 457.
Wis. — Nehring v. Niemerowicz, 276
N.W. 325, 226 Wis. 285.
59. Iowa. — Jordan v. Brown, 32 N.
W. 450, 71 Iowa 421.
33 C.J. p 1132 note 86.
60. Neb.— Heater v. Penrod, 89 N.
W. 762, 2 Neb.Unoff. 711.
33 C.J. p 1133 note 89.
61. W.Va. — Cline v. Star Coal &
Coke Co., 153 S.B. 148, 109 W.Va.
101— Del-Carbo Coal & Coke Co.
v. Cunninghame, 116 S.B. 719, 9*3
W.Va. 12.
Vnpleaded defense
A judgment based on an unplead-
ed defense that money sought to be
garnished was exempt because con-
stituting proceeds of insurance pol-
icy on household goods held void,
as being unsupported by pleadings.
— Sorenson v. City Nat. Bank, Tex.
Civ.App., 273 S.W. 638.
Declinatory exceptions
Where citations to a defendant are
served on the secretary of state, and
defendant challenges the validity of
the service and the jurisdiction of
the court through declinatory excep-
tions, but at no time files an answer
or suffers judgment to be taken by
default, judgment against defendant
on the merits has been 'held void. —
Rector v. Allied Van Lines, L/a.App.,
198 So. £16.
62. Mo. — Owens v. McCleary,
273 S.W. 145.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
40
Judgment, and a judgment rendered on a complaint fail-
ing to state a cause of action has been held erroneous.
As a general rule, pleadings must be sufficient
to support the judgment;63 they should be of such
a character that a final judgment will be sustained
by findings thereon.64 While mere generality of
the allegations is not of itself fatal to the validity
of a judgment,65 a judgment cannot be sustained
by allegations which are only conclusions of law
rather than averments of fact.66 Pleadings have
been held substantially defective where oral,67 and
facts presented by an unauthorized pleading do not
afford a proper predicate for judgment.68
In determining the sufficiency of the pleadings to
support the judgment it has been said that the- court
will consider the pleadings of both parties,69 and
that facts pleaded by the adverse party are available
to either party in support of the judgment70 In
testing the sufficiency of the complaint as a basis
on which to rest the judgment, averments unsup-
ported by the proof should be eliminated.71 A judg-
ment must be based on material allegations in the
63. Ariz.— Wallace r. Chappelle, 39
P.2d 935. 45 Ariz. $5.
CaL — »Kreling v. Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, 118 P.2d 470,
18 Cal.2d 884 — Stesel v. Santa Ana
River Water Co., 94 P.2d 1052, 85
Cal.App.2d 117.
Ky. — Mclntosh v. Clark, Thurmund
& Richardson, 177 S.W.2d 155, 296
Ky. 858— Bank of Tollesboro v.
W. T. Rawleigh Co., 291 S.W. 1089,
218 Ky. 516— National Surety Co.
v. Daviess County 'Planing Mill
Co., 281 S.W. 791, 213 Ky. 670—
Elkhorn Coal Corporation v. Case,
278 S.W. 570, 212 Ky. 146— Frick
Co. v. Salyers, 258 S.W. 3-10, 201
Ky. 763— Consolidation Coal Ca. v.
King, 244 S.W. 303, 19* Ky. 54.
Neb. — Domann v. Domann, 208 N.W.
669, 114 Neb. 563.
Okl.— Central Nat Oil Co. v. Conti-
nental Supply Co., 249 P. 347, 119
Okl. 190.
Or.— U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty O.
v. Zidell-Steinberg Co., HO P.2d
584, 151 Or. 5*38, modified on other
grounds 51 P.2d 687, 151 Or. 588.
Tenn. — Hunt v. National Linen Serv-
ice Corporation, 157 S.W.2d 608,
178 Tenn. 262.-
Tex. — John B. Quarles Co. v. Lee,
Com.App., 58 &W.2d 77, costs re-
taxed 67 &W.2d 607— Cohen v.
City of Houston, Civ.App., 185 S.
W.2d 450— Wi'ehlta Falls & S. R.
Co. v. Hesson, Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d
270, error dismissed, judgment
correct — Pine v. Pratt, Civ.App.,
150 S.W.2d 80!8— Ray v. Fowler,
Civ.A.pp., 144 S.W.2d 665, error dis-
missed, judgment correct — Lone
Star Finance Corporation v. Schel-
ling, Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 368— San-
er-Ragley Lumber Co. v. Sp*vey,
CiY.App., 255 S.W. 193, modified
on other grounds Spivey v. Saner-
Ragley Dumber Co., Com.App., 284
S.W. 210.
Pleadings impliedly wiffloieut
The entry of a judgment implies
that the pleadings were sufficient to
sustain the Judgment — Wistrom
Forsling, 14 N.W.2d 217, 144 Neb.
638.
Description of property
In so far as the description of
property in the pleadings is insuf-
49 C.J.S.-7
flcient to describe any property, a
Judgment based thereon is invalid.
Col. — Birkhauser v. Ross, 283 P. 866,
102 CaLApp. 582.
Mo. — Barrie v. Ranson, 46 S.W.2d
186, 226 Mo.App. 554.
Contradictory allegations
A pleading alleging that acts for
results of which the recovery of
damages was sought were malicious
and grossly negligent, and pleading
alleging that acts were malicious,
wrongful, willful, and wanton, were
insufficient to authorize judgment
based on negligence, or willful mis-
conduct because pleadings were con-
tradictory.— Michels v. Boruta, Tex.
C*v.App., 122 S.W.2d 216.
Pleading* held sufficient
(1) Generally.
U.S.— State Bank of New York v.
Henderson County, Ky., C.C.A.Ky.,
•35 F.2d 859, certiorari denied Hen-
derson County, State of Kentucky,
v. State Bank of New York, 50
S.Ct 245, 281 U.S. 728, 74 L.Bd.
1144, 1145.
HI. — Oberman v. Camden Fire Ins.
Ass'n, 145 N.E. 351, 314 111. 264
— Christenson v. Board of Chari-
ties of Illinois Conference of Ev.
Lutheran Augustana Synod, 253
Ill.App. $80.
Ky.— Small v. Minton, 192 S.W.2d
184— Carter v. Templeman, 182 S.
W.2d 241, 298 Ky. 272— United
Mine Workers of America, Local
Union 6659, v. Jones, 162 S.W.2d 17,
290 Ky. 569— Guinn v. Cross, 147
S.W.2d 375, 285 Ky. 571— Feltner
v. Smith, 143 S.W.2d 505, 283 Ky.
783— Carter v. Harlatji Hospital,
128 S.W.2d 174, 278 Ky. 84— Rob-
bins v. Hopkins, 65 S.W.2d 54, 251
Ky. 413— McKinney v. Knapp, 258
S.W. '314, 201 Ky. 768.
Mo.— Women's Christian Ass'n of
Kansas City v. Brown, 190 S.W.2d
900 — Jones v. Campbell, App., 189
S.W.2d 124.
Neb.— Hardt v. Orr, 6 N.W.2d 589,
142 Neb. 460-JProkop v. Mlady,
287 N.W. 55, 186 Neb. 644.
Tex. — Joyce v. Anderson-Bledsoe
Stave Co., Civ. App., 173 S.W.2d
315-^Sparrow v. Tinman, Civ.App.,
283 S.W. 877— Gulf, C. & & F. Ry.
Co. v. Kempner, Civ.App., 275 S.
97
W. 459, reversed on other grounds,
Com.App., 282 S.W. 795.
(2) Allegations as to negligence.
I1L — Belcher v. Citizens Coach Co.,
App., 64 N.B.2d 747.
Ky.— Hurley v. Greif, 115 S.W.2d
284, 272 Ky. 741.
(3) Averments as to contributory
negligence. — Posey v. Board of
Councilmen of City of Frankfort,
184 S.W.2d 970, 299 Ky. 210— Na-
pier v. Hurst-Snyder Hospital Co.,
130 S.W.2d 771, 279 Ky. 378.
(4) Description of property.
Ga. — Cason v. United Realty & Auc-
tion Co., 151 S.B. 161, 161 Ga. 374.
Ky.— Sapp v. Likens, 192 S.W.2d 394
— Souleyette v. McKee, 178 S.W.2d
833, 296 Ky. 868.
64. Nev. — Edmonds v. Perry, 140 P.
2d 566.
65. Conn. — Corden v. Zoning Bd. of
Appeals of City of Waterbury, 41
A.2d 912, 131 Conn. 654.
Ky. — S. K. Jones Const Co. v. Hend-
ley, 5 S.W.2d 482, 224 Ky. 83.
66. Ky.— -Murphy v. Blackburn, 16
S.W.2d 771, 229 Ky. 109— S. K.
Jones Const Co. v. Hendley, 5
S.W.2d 482, 224 Ky. 83.
Tex.— Wichita Falls & Southern R.
Co. v. Anderson, Civ.App., 144 S.
W.2d 441, error dismissed, Judg-
ment correct
67. Tex.— Holloway v. Miller, Civ.
App., 272 S.W. 562.
68. Ky.— Wells v. West, 15 S.W.2d'
531, 228 Ky. 737.
Substitute pleading filed without
proper procedure, as where the orig-
inal petition was lost and a substi-
tute was filed without notice to de-
fendant and hearing as required by
statute, afforded insufficient basis
for judgment and a judgment based
thereon was illegal. — Whorton v.
Nevitt, Tex.Civ.App., 42 S.W.2d 1056.
69. Tex.— HaU v. Collins, Clv.App.,
167 S.W.2d 210, affirmed Collins v.
Hall, 174 S.W.2d 50, 141 Tex. 433.
70. Tex.— Bagby v. Bagby, Civ.App.,
186 S.W.2d 702.
71. Cal.— White v. Covell, 227 P.
196, 66 CaLApp. 732.
40
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
pleadings.72 Under some practice a judgment may
not be entered on a cause of action asserted by re-
ply,73 Error in asserting the amount due in a
counterclaim and cross action should be corrected
by amendment thereof rather than by asserting the
correct amount in reply, and a judgment based on
the reply stating the correct amount cannot stand.74
Defects in form; irregularities. A pleading
which is merely deficient in form has been held not
to render the judgment void,75 but only voidable.76
Thus mere defects and irregularities in the plead-
ings will not invalidate the judgment,77 at least
where no timely objection thereto has been raised,78
and, even though a petition does not perfectly state
a cause of action, a valid judgment may be entered
thereon.™ A petition cannot be said to be so de-
fective that no legal judgment may be entered there-
on where the defect is amendable,80 but a judgment
has been held void where the petition was not
amendable.81 A judgment may be sustained de-
spite defects in the pleadings on which it is based
where the case falls within the purview of statu-
tory provisions designed to protect judgments, such
as statutes requiring a liberal construction of plead-
ings,82 or statutes of jeofails.83
Sufficiency of pleadings as basis of judgment for
defendant. If a petition or similar pleading is in-
sufficient as a basis for judgment in favor of plain-
tiff, it is also insufficient to serve as the basis for
a judgment for defendant.84 Where plaintiff fails
to amend, the proper judgment to enter is one sim-
ply of dismissal,85 and the fact that the pleading
fails to state a cause of action will not prevent ren-
dition of a judgment of dismissal.86 When issues
are framed on a plea in abatement and those issues
are found for defendant, resulting in a judgment
for him, such judgment has been held not void even
though a demurrer to the complaint was sustained,
since in such a case the judgment is not dependent
on a complaint to give it effect, but is dependent
72. HI.— National Can Co. v. Weir-
ton Steel Co., 145 N.E. 389, 314
111. 280.
73. Ky. — Conley v. Coburn, 179 S.W.
2d 668f 297 Ky 292— Connecticut
Fire Ins. of Hartford, Conn., v.
Baker, 153 S.W.2d 9.38, 287 Ky.
395.
Mont. — Armstrong- v. Butte, A. & P.
R. Co., 99 P.2d 223, 110 Mont 133
— Stillwater County v. Kenyon,
297 P. 453, 89 Mont 354.
74L Ky. — Rogers v. Boiling, 1 S.W.
2d 989, 222 Ky. 561.
75. Ala. — Agee v. Agee's Cash Store
No. 2, 10.0 So. 809, 211 Ala. 422.
Utah. — People's Bonded Trustee v.
Wight 272 P. 200, 72 Utah 587.
Jurisdiction of court
Where the nature of the suit in-
vokes the actual jurisdiction of the
court rendering the judgment and
the petition is merely lacking in
allegations as to the fullness of
' facts, it presents a matter for deter-
mination by the trial judge and
any error committed in rendering
the judgment on insufficient facts
does not render the judgment void.
— Rice v. Mercantile Bank & Trust
Co. of Texas, Tex.Civ.App., 86 S.W.
2d .54.
76. Tex. — Jackson v. Slaughter, Civ.
App., 185 S.W.2d 759, refused for
want of merit — Ritch v. Jarvis,
Civ. App., 64 S.W.2d 831, error dis-
missed— Hart v. Hunter, 114 S.W.
882, 52 Tex.Civ.App. 75.
77. U.S.— The Amaranth, C.C.AJNT.
Y., 68 F.2d 893.
Al<au — John 33. Ballenger Const. Co.
v. Joe P. Walters Const Co., 184
So. 275, 236 Ala. 548.
Ariz. — Mosher v. Way land, 158 P.2d
654, appeal dismissed 66 -S.Ct. 58.
Cal.— Russell v. Ramm, 254 P. 532,
200 Cal. 348— Goatman v. Fuller,
216 P. 35, 19i Cal. 245— In re
Dam's Estate, 14 P.2d 162, 126
CaLApp. 70 — Shupe v. Evans, 261
P. 492, 86 CaLApp. 700.
111. — Fleming v. City of Chicago, 260
Ill.App. 496.
Kan. — Goodman v. Cr etcher, 294 P.
868, 132 Kan. 142.
Ky.— Lorton v. Ashbrook, 295 S.W.
1027, 220 Ky. 830.
Mich. — Auditor General v. Oleznic-
zak, 4 N.W.2d 679, 302 Mich. 336.
Mo. — Breit v. Bowland, App., 127 S.
W.2d 71.
Okl. — Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v.
Excise Board of Oklahoma County,
3'3 P.2d 1081, 168 Okl. 428— Kansas
City Southern Ry. Co. v. Excise
Board of Le Flore County, 33 P.
2d 493, 168 Okl. 408.
Utah. — Gray's Harbor Lumber Co. v.
Burton Lumber Co., 236 P. 1102,
65 Utah 333, followed in Califor-
nia Pine Box Distributors v. Bur-
ton Lumber Co., 236 P. 1106, 65
Utah 332.
33 C.J. p 1134 note 1, p 1144 note 73.
ZTanie of plaintiff
Mo. — La Forge Undertaking Co. v.
Bader, App., 15 S.W.2d 945.
33 C.J. p 1134 note 1 [b].
Improper designation of court
While a judgment on petition
which fails properly to designate
court in which it is filed and in
which judgment is asked is void,
nevertheless an error or mistake in
addressing a petition to the wrong
court can be cured by supplemental
or amended petition filed before is-
sue joined and giving the proper
98
name and title of the court and in
such case the petition will support
the Judgment — Kunnes v. Kogos,
123 So. 122, 168 La. 682, 65 A.L.R.
706.
78. Fla. — Harris v. Smith, 7 So.2d
343, 150 Fla. 125.
N.C.— Hinton v. Whitehurst, 4 S.E.2d
507, 216 N.C. 241.
Tex.— Kirkpatrick v. Neal, Civ.App.,
153 S.W.2d 519, error refused.
79. Okl.— Protest of St. Louis-San
Francisco Ry. Co., 38 P.2d 954,
170 Okl. 11.
80. Ga. — S towers v. Harris, '22 S.E.
2d 405, 194 Ga. 636.
Okl.— Wetzel v. Evans, 147 P.2d 133,
194 Okl. 20— Latimer v. Haste,
223 P. 879, 101 Okl. 109.
Tex. — Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v.
Piper, Civ.App., 222 S.W. 649.
Utah.— State v. Cragun, 20 P.2d 247,
81 Utah 45,— People's Bonded
Trustee v. Wight, 272 P. 200, 72
Utah 587.
81. Ga.— Deck v. Shields, 25 S.E.M
514, 195 Ga. 697.
82. Or. — Siddons v. Lauterman, 109
P.2d 1049, 165 Or. 668.
33 <C.J. p 1134 note 5.
83. Mich— Ferton v. Feller, 33
Mich. 199.
34 C.J. p 510 note 35.
84. Tex.— Stewart v. Collatt, Civ.
App., Ill S.W.2d 1131— JCollins v.
Lowe, Civ.App., 5 S.W.2d 872.
85. Tex. — Collins v. Lowe, supra.
86. Ky.— Wilson v. Louisville & N.
R. Co., 77 S.W.2d 416, 257 Ky.
144, .
49 C.J.8.
JUDGMENTS
§ 40
only on the continued existence Of the cause in
court.87 While defendant's pleadings must be suf-
ficient to support the judgment rendered,88 they
may be sufficient although defective if the defect is
amendable.89 It has been held that affirmative re-
lief cannot be granted a defendant on the basis of
his answer, but that a judgment for affirmative re-
lief must be supported by a counterclaim.90
Defects in petition or complaint. As a general
rule, where plaintiffs declaration or complaint is
defective in substance, to the extent of failing to
make out a cause of action, it cannot support a
judgment in his favor, and such judgment will be
erroneous and reversible91 notwithstanding no de-
murrer was filed,92 or, if filed, was overruled, and
defendant has answered over.93 It has been held
that failure of plaintiff's initial pleading to state a
cause of action is not a jurisdictional defect,94 and
that, except where the complaint shows that the
court has no jurisdiction of the parties and the sub-
ject matter95 or fails to show affirmatively that the
court has such jurisdiction,96 a judgment rendered
87. Ala. — Box v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 168 So. 216, 232 Ala. 1.
88. Fla.— Smith v, Pattishall, 173
So. 355.
Case not terminated
In action on note, where defend-
ant's pleas failed to set out any
sufficient legal defense, a judgment
rendered for defendant did not con-
stitute a legal termination of the
case. — A. W. Muse Co. v. Collins,
199 S.R 856, 58 Ga.App. 753.
Flea or answer held sufficient
Cal.— Valentine v. G. S. Donaldson
Inv. Co., 260 (P. *05, 86 Cal.App.
142.
Ohio. — Thacker v. Matthews, 43 N.
E.2d 108, 70 Ohio App. 314.
Plea or answer held insufficient
Fla. — Merchants & Bankers Guaran-
ty Co. v. Downs, 175 So. 704, 128
Fla. 767.
89. Tex.— Gilbert v. T. B. Allen &
Co., Civ.App., 16 S.W.2d 377, er-
ror refused.
90. N.J.— Kraft v. Fassitt, 30 A.2d
574, 132 N.J.Ea. 603. reversed on
other grounds 28 A,2d 537, 132 N.
J.Eq. 625.
91. U.S. — Barnes v. Boyd, D.C.W.
Va., 8 F.Supp. 584, affirmed. C.C.
A., 73 F.2d 910, certiorari denied
55 S.Ct. 550, 294 U.S. 72'3, 79 L.Ed.
1254, rehearing denied 55 S.Ct. 647,
295 U.S. 768, 79 L.Ed. 1708.
Ala. — John E. Ballenger Const. Co.
v. Joe F. Walters Const. Co., 184
So. 275, 236 Ala. 548— Rhodes v.
Sewell, 109 So. 179, 21 Ala.App.
441.
Ark.— Wilson v. Overturf, 248 S.W.
898, 157 Ark. 385.
Cal. — Kreling v. Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, 118 P.2d 470,
18 Cal.2d 884 — Birkhauser v. Ross,
283 P. 866, 102 Cal.App. 582.
Fla. — McDougald v. Couey, 200 So.
391, 145 Fla. 689— Oorpus Juris
cited in East Coast Stores v. Cuth-
bert, 133 So. 863, 865, 101 Fla. 25
— Porter v. Sprague, 126 So. 759,
99 Fla. 371.
Idaho.— Stanger v. Hunter, 291 P.
1060, 49 Idaho 723.
Ky.— Hardin Oil Co. v. Spencer, 266
S.W. 654, 205 Ky. 842.
Miss. — Smith v. Peas, 130 So. 105,
158 Miss. Ill— Carrier Lumber &
Mfg. Co. v. Quitman County, 124
So. 437, 156 Miss. 396, 66 A.L.R.
614, suggestion of error overruled
125 So. 416, 156 Miss. 396, 66 A.
L.R. 614, followed in Matthews v.
Quitman County. 127 So. 305.
Mont — Lindsey v. Drs. Keenan, An-
drews & Allred, 165 P.2d 804—
Montana Auto Finance Corpora-
tion v. British & Federal Under-
writers of Norwich Union Fire
Ins. Socy 232 -P. 198, 72 Mont 69,
36 A.L.R. 1495.
Neb.— Sallander v. Prairie Life Ins.
Co., 200 N.W. 844, 112 Neb. 629.
N.M. — Corpus Juris cited in In re
Field's Estate, 60 P.2d 945, 950,
40 N.M. 423.
Pa. — Greenberg v. Goldman Stores
Corporation, 178 A. 528, 117 Pa.
Super. 559.
Tex. — Stovall v. Finney, Civ.App.,
152 S.W.2d 887— -Fort Worth &
Denver City Ry. Co. v. Reid, Civ.
App., 115 S.W.2d 1156— Bell v.
Beckum, Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d 389—
Wichita County v. Allred, Civ.
App., 27 S.W.2d 653— Trail v. Ma-
phis & Day, <3iv.App., 25 S.W.2d
627 — Texas Electric Service Co. v.
Perkins, CivJLpp., 11 S.W.2d 643,
affirmed, Com. App., 23 S.W.2d 320,
followed in Texas Electric Service
Co. v. Bradford, Civ.App., 26 S.W.
2d 339— West Texas Utilities Co.
v. Nunnally, Civ.App., 10 S.W.2d
391— Austin v. Fields, Civ.App.,
300 S.W. 247 — Texas Employers'
Ins. Ass'n v, Wright, Civ. App., 297
S.W. 764, modified on other
grounds, Com.App., 4 S.W.2d 31,
motion denied 7 S.W.2d 72— Hollo-
way v. Miller, Civ.App.f 272 S.W.
562.
38 C.J. p 1183 note 95, p 1144 note
68.
Allegation of liability
(1) A petition or similar pleading
which fails to allege some liability
against a defendant does not state
a cause of action within the rule
requiring written pleadings in sup-
port of a. judgment of a court of
record.— Woodward v. Acme Lumber
Co., Tex.Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d 1054— •
Fisk v. Warren, Tex.Civ.App., 248
S.W. 406.
99
(2) In an action on notes signed
jointly by a husband and wife, a
petition stating only that the for-
mer is the husband of the latter, and
not that he executed and delivered
the notes, is insufficient to sustain a
judgment against him. — Fisk v.
Warren, supra.
Cause of action in alternative
A pleading stating a cause of ac-
tion against two parties in the al-
ternative is insufficient to sustain a
judgment against either. — Hartzell
v. Bank of Murray, 277 S.W. 270, 211
Ky. 26-8.
Jurisdiction
The sufficiency of a petition in a
court of record is not the test of
jurisdiction, since the court may
commit an error in holding it suffi-
cient— In re Warner's Estate, 288 N.
W. 39, 137 Neb. 25.
92. Ala. — St .Clair County v. Smith,
20 So. 584, 112 Ala. 347.
93. Iowa. — Brown v. Cunningham,
48 N.W. 1042, 82 Iowa 512, 12 L.
R.A. 583.
94. Cal.— In re Keel's Estate, 100
P.2d 1045, 15 «Cal.2d 328.
'Okl.— Noel v. Edwards, 260 P. 58,
127 Okl, 163 — Abraham v. Homer,
226 P. 45, 102 Okl. 12.
95. Cal. — Moran v. -Superior Court
in and for Sacramento County, 96
P.2d 193, 36 Cal.App.2d 629.
"The law makes a distinction be-
tween a complaint which does not
state a cause of action by reason
of defects in the allegations therein
contained, where the court has ju-
risdiction of the subject-matter of
the action, and cases where the court
has no jurisdiction of the subject-
matter. If it appears from the com-
plaint that the court had no jurisdic-
tion of the subject-matter, the judg-
ment of course is void, but if the
court has jurisdiction of the subject-
matter, its rulings upon demurrer as
to the sufficiency of the complaint
constitutes only errors in procedure
in the trial." — Behrens v. Superior
Court in and for Tuba County, 23 P.
2d 428, 429, 132 Cal.App. 704.
96. Tex. — Smith v. Pegram, Civ.
App., 80 S.W.2d 354, error refused
— Randals v. Green, Civ.App., 258
S.W. 628.
§41
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
thereon is not void merely because the complaint
fails to state a cause of action,9? as long as it ap-
prises defendant of the nature of plaintiffs de-
mand.98 In this connection it has been said that
jurisdiction of the court to render judgment does
not depend on the sufficiency or fullness of a cause
of action pleaded,99 and that, if a cause is pleaded
belonging to a general class over which the court's
authority extends, jurisdiction attaches, and the
court has power to determine whether the pleading
is good or bad and to decide on its sufficiency as a
statement of a cause of action.* On the other hand,
it has been broadly stated in some decisions that,
where a complaint or similar pleading fails to state
facts constituting a cause of action, the court lacks
jurisdiction to render a judgment thereon,2 and that
a judgment rendered thereon is ordinarily void,3
at least where it rests solely on allegations of a
complaint so deficient -in substance as conclusively
to negative the existence of a cause of action at the
time of its rendition.4 Where the facts stated in
the pleadings do not justify the judgment entered,
the latter is coram non judice,5 and where a plead-
ing is so drawn as 'to show that the court can
have no jurisdiction of the controversy, or is a nul-
lity, any judgment rendered thereon is void.6
§41.
Several Counts
The more modern rule, prevailing under statute, gen*
erally regards a judgment on a general verdict as re*
ferable to good counts in a pleading and valid despite the
existence of bad counts therein.
At common law, and in the absence of statute
changing the rule, where the verdict is general, and
one of the counts is bad, the judgment has been re-
garded as erroneous,7 except where all the counts
relate to the same cause of action, in which case it
has been held that the rule does not apply.8
The modern rule, however, usually applied by vir-
tue of statute, holds a judgment valid under such
circumstances where there is one good count in
the declaration or complaint,9 the judgment being
referable to the good count,10 unless it affirma-
tively appears that the verdict and judgment are
based only on the defective counts.11
It has been said that failure to require a party to
exercise his right of election as between tort and
contract counts in his pleading is at most a mere
jurisdiction to enter a, Judgment
Is dependent on a complaint show-
Ing such jurisdiction. — U. S. Nat.
Bank of Portland v. Humphrey, 288
P. 416, 49 Idaho 8.63.
97. Cal.— Moran v. Superior Court
in and for Sacramento County, 96
P.2d 198, (35 Cal.App.2d 629— Ex
parte Sargren, 27 P.2d 407, 135 Cal.
App. 402 — Behrens v. Superior
Court in and for Tuba County, 28
P.2d 428, 132 CaLApp. 704— Asso-
ciated Oil Co. Y. Mullin, 294 P.'
421, 110 Cal.App. 385.
Mo. — Meierhoffer v. Kennedy, 263 8.
W. 416, 504 Mo. 261.
Neb. — Wistrom v. Porsling, 14 N.W.
2d 217, 144 Neb. 638.
N,M, — Corpus Juris cited in In re
Field's Estate, 60 P.2d 945, 951,
40 N.M. 423.
Okl. — Raymer v. First Nat. Bank, 87
(P.2d 1097, 184 Okl. 392— -Protest
of Stanolind Pipe Line Co., 32 P.
2d 869, 168 Okl. 281— Fowler V.
Margruret Pillsbury General Hos-
pital, 229 P. 442, 102 Okl. 203.
33 C.J. p 1133 note 96.
Absence of affirmative showing-
Judgment of court having Juris-
diction of subject matter and of
parties is not void on ground that
petition failed to state, or defective-
ly stated, cause of action, unless it
affirmatively appears from petition
that no valid cause of aetlon could
be stated.— Schmid v. Farris, 07 P.
2d 596, 169 Okl. 445.
98. Cal. — Trans-Pacific Trading Co.
• v. Patsy Frock & Romper Co., 209
P. 357, 189 Cal. 509— Moran v. Su-
perior Court in and for Sacramen-
to County, 96 P.2d 193, 35 CaLApp.
2d 629— Associated Oil Cd. v. Mul-
lin, 294 P. 421, 110 CaLApp. 385
— Sheehan v. All Persons, etc.,
252 P. 337, 80 CaLApp. 393— Roe-
mer v. Nunes, 238 P. 820, 73 Cal.
App. -368.
Okl. — Bynum v. Strain, 218 'P. 883,
95 Okl. 45.
Or.— Walling: v. I*ebb, 15 P,2d 370,
140 Or. 691.
33 C.J. p 113*3 note 96 [a] (3).
99. Mont.— State ex rel. Cook v.
District Court of Ninth Judicial
Dist in and for Glacier County,
69 P.2d 746, 105 Mont 72— State
ex rel. Delmoe v. District Court of
Fifth Judicial Dist, 46 P.2d 39,
100 Mont 131.
1. Mont — State ex reL Delmoe v.
District Court of Fifth Judicial
Dist, 46 P.2d 39, 100 Mont. 131.
2. Mont. — Hodson v. O'Keeffe, 229
P. 722, 71 Mont 322.
3. U.S. — McLellan v. Automobile
Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., CJC.A.
Ariz., 80 F.2d 344.
Ala.— Rhodes v. Sewell, 109 So. 179,
21 Ala.App. 441.
Idaho. — Jensen v. Gooch, 211 P. 551,
36 Idaho 457— Howell v. Martin,
211 OP. 528, 36 Idaho 468.
Miss.-— U. <S. Fidelity & Guaranty
Co. v. Plumbing: Wholesale Co., 166
So. 529, 175 Miss. 675.
Tex. — Wright v. Shipman, Civ.App.,
279 S.W. 296.
4. Mont — State ex rel. Delmoe v.
District Court of Fifth Judicial
Dist., 46 P.2d 39, 100 Mont 131.
100
5. Tenn. — State v. Collier, 53 S.W.
2d 982, 164 Tenn. 163.
6* Tex. — -White v. Baker, Civ.App.,
118 S.W.2d -319.
7. N.H.— Glines v. Smith, 48 N.H.
259.
33 C.J. p 1134 note 7.
8. N.H. — Glines v. Smith, supra.
33 C.J. p 1134 note 9.
9. CaL— -Martin v. Pacific South-
west Royalties, 106 P.2d 443, 41
Cal. App. 2d 161— Worthington v.
People's State Bank of Chula Vis-
ta, 288 P. 1086, 106 CaLApp. 238.
111. — Standard Oil Co. v. Town of
(Patterson, 21 N.B.2d 12, 300 111.
App. $85 — Moore v. Jansen &
Schaefer, 265 IlLApp. 459.
Ind. — Carter v. Thomas, 3 Ind. 213.
Iowa. — McCornack v. Pickerell, 294
N.W. 746, 229 Iowa 4-57.
Tex. — Schaff v. Sanders, Civ.App.,
257 S.W. 670, affirmed, Com. App.,
2e9 S.W. 1034.
33 C.J. p 1134 note 10.
Statutory change of common-law
rule discussed
Miss.— Scott v. Peebles, 10 Miss. 546,
561.
10. Ala. — Andalusia Motor Co. v.
Mullins, 18'3 So. 456, 28 Ala.App.
201, certtorari denied 183 So. 460,
236 Ala. 474.
33 C.J. p 1134 note 10 [a].
11. TT.S. — Scull v. Roane, Ark. Super.,
21 F.Cas.No.l2,570c, Hempst 103.
111. — Western Stone Co. v. Whalen,
51 Ill.App. 512, affirmed 38 N.&
241, 151 111, 472, 42 Am.S.R, 244.
33 C.J. p 1134 note 11.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
irregularity which will render the judgment void-
able rather than void.12 If there was a demurrer
to a defective count, which was erroneously over-
ruled, the judgment is invalid where the record
does not show affirmatively that the judgment rests
exclusively on the good counts;18 but all counts
must be bad, however, to establish invalidity where
there was no demurrer.1* Where the verdict is
special, and responsive to a good count, a judg-
ment thereon is, of course, unobjectionable.^
Where all the counts show a good cause of action,
the judgment is not bad because it was general, al-
though, on the evidence, plaintiff was not entitled
to recover on some of the counts.1^
§ 42. Issues
Ordinarily the pleading* In a cause must evolve an
Issue of law or fact before a Judgment can regularly be
rendered.
Subject to exceptions which may occur in the
case of judgments by confession, consent, or de-
fault, as discussed infra §§ 150-151, 174, 193, or
following submission on an agreed rtatement of
facts under principles considered infra § 186, it is
a general rule that the pleadings in a cause must
evolve an issue of law or fact before a judgment
can regularly be rendered.17 A judgment rendered
without issue joined or waived is erroneous,18 some
authorities holding that such a judgment is void19
and others that it is merely voidable.2** When an
issue is tried which is not within the pleadings, no
duty rests on the trial court to render judgment
thereon and its failure or refusal to do so is not
erroneous.21
§43.
Determination of All Issues
Generally a Judgment must dispose of all Issues In
the case, either expressly or by necessary Implication.
The prevailing rule under common law and stat-
utes declaratory thereof requires a judgment to de-
termine all issues22 among all the parties,23 except
such issues as are waived or abandoned on the trial
of the case.24 So the judgment must be as broad
as the issues and must respond to all the issues both
18. Cat.— Bank of America Nat
Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Hill, 71
P.2d 258, 9 CaL2d 495.
13. 111.— Lake Shore & M. S. Ry.
Co. v. Barnes, 76 N.E. 629, 166 Ind.
7, 3 L.R.A.,N.S., 778.
88 O.J. p 1185 note 12.
14. Ind. — Kelsey v. Henry, 48 Ind.
37— Dice v. Morris, 82 Ind. 288.
15. Pa. — McCredy v. James, 6
Whart. 547,
Va.— Binns v. Waddill, 82 Gratt. 588,
73 Va. €88.
16. Ala. — Jones v. Belue, 200 So.
886, 241 Ala. 22.
88 C.J. p 1185 note 15.
17. W.Va, — Kinder v. Boomer Coal
& Coke Co., 95 S.B. 580, 82 W.Va.
82.
83 C.J. p 1155 n«te 21.
Disposition of issues presented
In the interest of certainty, Ju-
dicial Judgments, should be limited
strictly to disposition of issues ac-
tually presented. — Singer Mfg. Co. v.
National Labor Relations Board, C
C.A., 119 F.2d 181, certiorari denied
61 S.Ct. 1119, 818 U.S. 595, 85 1*.
Ed. 1549, rehearing denied 62 S.Ct
55, 314 U.S. 708, 86 L.E3d. 565.
Record held to show Joinder of is-
sue
Ala. — Denhaxn v. Tancey, 95 So. 201,
19 Ala.App. 45, certiorari denied
Ez parte Denhaxn, 95 So. 202, 208
Ala. 637.
18. W.Va.— CUne y. Star Coal &
Coke Co., 153 S.E. 148, 109 W.Va.
101.
83 C.J. p 1135 note 22.
19. La. — Lacour Plantation Co. v.
Jewell, 173 So. 761, 186 La. 1055,
— Rector v. Allied Van Lines, App.,
198 So. 516 — Robinson v. Enloe,
121 So. 320, 10 La.App. 435.
Ohio. — Binns v. Isabel, 12 Ohio Supp.
115, affirmed 51 N.B.2d 501, 72
Ohio App. 222.
33 C.J. p 1135 note 24.
20. Tenn. — Doyle v. Smith, 1 Coldw.
15.
21. Neb.— Bowman v. Cobb, 258 N.
W. 535, 128 Neb. 289.
22. Cal.— Mather v. Mather, 140 P.
2d 808, 22 Cal.2d 713— Nakamura
v. Kondo, 223 P. 425, 65 CaLApp.
211.
Ga, — South View Cemetery Ass'n v.
Hailey, 34 S.E.2d 863, 199 Ga.
478.
Mo.— Ex parte Fowler, 275 S.W. 529—
Gay v. Kansas City Public Service
Co., App., 77 S.W.2d 133— Nokes v.
Nokes, App.. 8 S.W.2d 879— Spring-
field Gas & Electric Co. y. Frater-
nity Bldg. Co., App., 264 S.W. 429.
N.Y.— Water Right & Electrical Co.
v. Rockland Light & Power Co.,
280 N.T.S. 317, 245 App.Div. 739—
Maclvor v. -Schwartzman, 260 N.T.
S. 707, 237 App.Div. 825.
OkL-r Hurley v. Hurley, 127 P.2d
147, 191 Okl. 194— Foreman v. Ri-
ley, 211 P. 495, 88 Okl. 75.
Tex.— Southern Pac. Co. v. Ulmer,
ConuApp., 286 S.W. 193 — Harris v.
O'Brien, Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 277.
Wyo. — Norris v. United Mineral
Products Co., 158 P.2d 679.
33 C.J. p 1135 note 26.
Disputed items; remission
(1) In action on note and open ac-
count, Judgment cannot be entered
for admitted indebtedness reserving
disputed items for subsequent trial,,
101
as this would result in two Judg-
ments in one action. — Lakin-Allen
Electric Co. v. Lamb, 226 N.W. 229,
247 Mich. 590.
(2) If defendant tenders Judgment
for a confessed amount, however,
plaintiff may take Judgment for such
amount, and thereby remit amount
in dispute. — Grand Dress v. Detroit
Dress Co., 227 N.W. 723, 248 Mich.
447.
Eitner party may complain of and
have reversal of Judgment which
does not have effect of determining
sole • issue as to existence of con-
tract on which plaintiff seeks to re-
cover.— McKeel v. Mercer, 29 P.2d
939, 167 Okl. 413.
23. Mo.— Electrolytic Chlorine Co.
v. Wallace & Tiernan Co.. 41 S.W.
2d 1049, 328 Mo. 782, 78 A.L.R.
930— Neal v. Curtis & Co. Mfg. Co.,
41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo. 389.
Tex.— Patton v. Mitchell, CivJlpp.,
13 .S.W.2d 146.
24. D.C. — Anderson v. Mackey, 16
D.C. 335.
Ky.— Hurley v. Hurley. 127 P.2d 147,
191 Okl. 194.
Okl.— Foreman v. Riley, 211 P, 495,
88 Okl. 75— Wells v. Shriver, 197
P. 460, 81 Okl. 108.
33 C.J. p 1136 note 28.
Counterclaim
In absence of showing that de-
fendants pressed counterclaim, de-
fendants will be held to have ac-
quiesced in rendition of Judgment
dismissing petition without dispos-
ing of counterclaim,— <Jity of St
Louis ex reL and to Use of Sears
v. (Clark, Mo.App., $5 S.W.2d 980.
§ 43
JUDGMENTS
49 .C.J.S.
of law and fact,25 and it must dispose of the entire
subject matter of the litigation26 and conclude all
further inquiry into the issues joined by the plead-
ings, leaving nothing further to be done except to
carry the judgment into execution.27 In rendering
judgment the court may, however, properly disre-
gard an immaterial issue.28 A judgment will be
held sufficient if it disposes of material issues by
necessary implication even though it does not do so
in formal terns,29 and as a rule it will be presumed
that the court passed on all questions properly pre-
sented which under its own ruling it was possible
for it to adjudge.30
Ordinarily judgment should not be rendered with-
out disposing of matters raised by defendant's
pleadings,31 such as a counterclaim82 or cross com-
plaint,33 unless the determination of the issue on
which the judgment is based is necessarily decisive
of the whole case34 or the actions have been sepa-
rated under statutes or court rules permitting such
practice.35 An answer filed by one of several de-
fendants, which may be or become common to all,
and which goes to the right of plaintiff to recover,
precludes judgment against a codefendant until the
issues have been disposed of by the court.36 It has
been held improper to render judgment on an inter-
vention without at the same time acting on the prin-
cipal action.37
25. Mo. — Magee v. Mercantile-Com-
merce Bank & Trust Co., 98 S.W.
2d 614, 839 Mo. 559 — Lummi Bay
Packing* Co. v. Kryder, App., 1
S.W. 543.
Pa, — Thompson v. Emerald Oil Co.,
123 A. 810, 279 Pa. 321.
Tex. — Standard Motor Co. v. Witt-
man, Civ.App., 271 S.W. 186— Fort
Worth Acid Works v. City of
Tort Worth, Oiv.App., 248 S.W.
822, affirmed City of Fort Worth
v. Fort Worth Acid Works Co.,
Com.App., 259 S.W. 919.
33 C.J. p 1136 note 27.
26. Tex. — Southern Trading Co. of
Texas v. Feldman, Com. App., 259
S.W. 566— Patton v. Mitchell, Civ.
App., 13 S.W.2d 146 — Lindsey v.
Hart, Civ.App., 260 S.W. 286.
27. Okl. — Foreman v. Riley, 211 P.
495, 88 Okl. 75.
28. Tex. — Miller v. Lemm, Com.
App., 276 S.W. 211.
29. Ga. — Pittman Const. Co. v. City
of Marietta, 172 S.E. 644, 177 Ga.
573.
Tex. — Medearis v. Buratti, Civ.App.,
275 S.W. 617— Panhandle Grain &
Elevator Co. v. Dowlin, Civ.App.,
247 S.W. 873.
Judgment upheld as sufficiently dis-
posing' of all issue*
Mo.— Saxbury v. Coons, 98 S.W.2d
$62.
Tex. — Whisen-ant v. Cole, Civ.App.,
285 S.W. 835— Mathis v. Overland
Automobile Co. of Dallas, Civ.
App., 265 S.W. 1069.
30. Ga. — South View Cemetery
Ass'n v. Hailey, 34 S.E.2d 863,
199 Ga. 478.
Tex. — Cramer v. Cornell, Civ.App.,
108 S.W.2d 1115, reversed on oth-
er grounds 130 S.W.2d 1023, 134
Tex. 17.
Effect of recital
Recital in judgment that issues
were found for defendant means all
essential issues, including those
raised by denial.— Di Blasi v. Di
Blasi, 163 A. 473, 116 Conn. 699. ,
Irrespective of whether or not
pleaded, on the basis of Inescapable
inherency, it may be assumed that
the court passed on a constitutional
question involved in the 'decision
rendered.—- State ex rel. Rose v.
Webb City, 64 S.W.2d 597, 333 Mo.
1127, transferred, see, App., 74 S.W.
2d 45.
31. Ky. — Jones v. Stearns, 260 S.W.
375, 202 Ky. 598.
S.C.— Watson v. Matley, 114 S.E.
412, 121 S.C. 482.
W.Va. — Rosier v. McDaniel, 28 S.E.
2d 908, 126 W.Va. 434.
33 C.J. p 1156 note 29.
Equitable defense
Ky. — Jones v. Stearns, 260 S.W. 373,
202 Ky. 598.
Flea of privilege
Trial court was unauthorized to
render Judgment on merits until it
had finally disposed of plea of priv-
ilege; and a controverting affidavit
to plea of privilege presents real is-
sues which must be tried and dis-
posed of before, or at time of, dis-
position of main cause, unless waiv-
ed.— Smith v. Watson, Tex.Civ.App.,
44 S.W.2d 815.
312. Ky.— Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Co. v. Lexington-Hazard Ex-
press Co.'s Receiver, 64 S.W.2d
631, 246 Ky. 102.
Mo. — Liepman v. Rothschild, 262 S.
W. 685, 216 Mo.App. 251.
3a Cal. — Browne v. T. J. Lawrence
Co., 268 P. 631, 204 Cal. 424.
34. Ky. — Haywood v. Gooch, 86 S.
W.2d 665, 260 Ky. 667.
Mo. — City of St. Louis ex rel. and
to Use of Sears v. Clark, App., 35
S.W.2d 986.
Tex. — Threadgill v. Fagan, Civ.App.,
64 S.W.2d 405— Williams v. Walk-
er, Clv.App., 290 S.W. 299— Po-
mona Mut Oil Syndicate v. Wil-
liamsport Wire Rope Co., Civ.App.,
282 S.W. 958.
33 C.J. p 1136 note -30.
Necessary implication
(1) Set-off or counterclaim need
not be expressly mentioned in judg-
102
ment, provided it is disposed of by
necessary implication. — 'Prim v. La-
tham, iTex.Civ.App., 6 S.W.2d 175,
error refused.
(2) Judgment for plaintiff for
amount sued for without mention-
ing cross action by necessary impli-
cation disposes of entire case. — Pan-
handle Compress & Warehouse Co.
v. Best, Tex.Civ.App., 58 S.W.2d 140.
Unliquidated amount
. Where plaintiffs' claim was par-
tially unliquidated and defendants'
counterclaim was also for unliqui-
dated amount, judgment was in
proper form and not for an impos-
sible amount, judgment must be af-
firmed, even though no reference
was made therein to the counter-
claim.— Zappolo v. Lanigan, 285 N.
Y.S. 863, 246 App.Div. 443, affirmed
4 N.E,2d 815, 272 N.Y. 584.
35. Tex. — Latshaw v. Barnes, Civ.
App., 170 S.W.Sd 531.
Segregation under civil procedure
rule
Where court, under civil procedure
rule, segregated cause of action aris-
ing on petition of intervention and
tried that cause separate from orig-
inal cause of action and cross ac-
tions, court was authorized to enter
separate and final Judgment on such
petition without finally disposing of
issues raised by original suit or
cross actions. — Latshaw v. Barnes,
supra.
36. Ky.— Rucker v. Baker, 177 S.W.
2d 878, 296 Ky. 505.
37* La. — T i c k f a w Homegrowers'
Ass'n v. Gallodoro, 132 So. 767, 15
I/a, App. 686.
Garnishment
Judgment awarding plaintiff in
garnishment suit, two interveners
and garnishee amounts totaling less
than sum shown by garnishee's an-
swer to be due third intervener on
judgment, claimed by latter to be ex-
empt from garnishment, held not er-
roneous as failing to dispose of
amount. in controversy, remainder of
funds in g»arnishee's hands being
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 44
A failure to pass on a motion is immaterial, as
the entry of judgment is in effect a final disposition
of motions previously filed.38
Partial judgment under statute or ride. Under
statutes or court rules providing that, where .after
answer part of plaintiff's claim is admitted or tin-
contested, plaintiff may have judgment for so much
of his claim, subject to such terms as may be just,
the intent is to enable the court of first instance
to clear away portions of a claim or defense not
involving disputed questions of fact by entering a
partial judgment thereon.3^ Such a statute should
not be* so construed as to permit a judgment on
. part of a cause of action where the part is an in-
in effect awarded to third interven-
er as exempt without necessity for
rendition of Judgment in his favor
for such amount — Coles v. Pewel,
Teac.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 323, error
dismissed.
38. 111.— Washington Park Club v.
Baldwin, 59 111. App. 61.
33 C.J. p 1137 note 85.
39. 'N.J.— Warren Balderston Co. v.
Ivory, 16 A.2d 617, 125 N.J.Law
469.
40. N.Y.— Lowe v. Lowe, 192 N.E.
291, 265 N.T. 197.
41. Cal. — Sheeny v. Roman Catholic
complete fragment of an entire claim which cannot
be thus divided without mutilation.40
§ 44. Evidence
As a general rule a Judgment must be supported by
legally adduced evidence of a substantial and sufficient
character, and a judgment may not rest on mere specu-
lation, surmise, or suspicion.
.While exceptions may occur in respect of judg-
ments by confession or consent, or those entered on
admissions or default, under principles discussed in-
fra §§ 162, 174, 185, 210-213, as a general rule the
evidence must sustain the judgment,41 proof being
as essential to the support of a judgment as plead-
ing.42 The evidence must be of a substantial char-
acter,^ sufficient to support the judgment ren-
dered.44 The judgment must be founded on suffi-
Archbishop of San Francisco, 122
P.2d 60, 49 Cal.App.2d 537.
HI. — Oak Park Trust & Savings
Bank v. Soulias, 3 N.E.2d 159,
284 Ill.App. 646.
Ky.— Producers' Coal Co. of Ken-
tucky v. Barnaby, 275 S.W. 625,
210 Ky. 244— City Bank & Trust
Co. of Hopkinsville v. Dark To-
bacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n, 272
.S.W. 751, 209 Ky. 830.
Mo. — American Extension School of
Law v. Ragland, 112 S.W.2d 110,
232 Mo.App. 763— Brie City Iron
Works v. Ferer, App.,
1008.
263 S.W.
N.X— Automobile Ins. Co. of Hart-
ford, Conn. v. Conway, 158 A. 480,
109 N.J.EQ. 628— Rich v. Inter-
City Transp. Co., 165 A. 296, 11
N.J.Misc. 243.
N.T. — Sabl v. Laenderbank Wien Ak-
tiengesellschaft, 80 N.T.S.2d 608,
opinion supplemented 33 N.T.S.2d
764.
Or.— U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
v. Zidell-Steinberg Co., 50 P.2d
584, 151 Or. 5<38, modified on other
grounds 51 P.2d 687, 151 Or. 538.
S.B.— Morrison v. Connery, 229 N.W.
392, 56 S.D. 469.
Tex. — Cohen v. City of Houston, Civ.
App., 185 S.W.2d 450— Shackelford
v. Neilon, Civ.App., 100 S.W.2d
, io37 — Motley v. Tom Green Coun-
ty, Civ.App., 93 S.W.2d 768, re-
versed on other grounds Tom
Green County v. Motley, 118 S.W.
2d 306, 132 Tex. 54— Matrimonial
Mut Ass'n of Texas v. Rutherford,
Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 719, error dis-
missed— Gilmer v. Graham, Civ.
App., 26 S.W.2d 687, reversed on
other grounds, Com.App., 52 S.W.
2d 263— National Life & Accident
Ins. Co. of Tennessee v. Wash-
ington, Civ.App.f 295 S.W. 204 —
Austin Bros. Bridge Co. v. Road
Dist No. -3 of Liberty County,
Civ.App., 247 S.W. 674.
Conformity of judgment to proof
generally see infra §§ 47-54.
Arbitrary declaration, if without evi-
dence
A Judgment, entered without hear-
ing evidence on basic issues of fact,
is only arbitrary declaration of
judge, having no reference to liabili-
ty involved, even though purporting
to be judicial determination of judg-
ment creditors' rights. — Burket v.
Reliance Bank & Trust Co., 11 N.E.
2d 6, 367 111. 196.
42. Ky.— ^Consolidation Coal Co. v.
King, 244 S.W. 303, 196 Ky. 54.
Tenn. — Poster v. Andrews, 189 S.
W.2d 580.
Tex. — Birdville Independent School
Dist v. Deen, Civ.App., 141 S.W.2d
680, affirmed Deen v. Birdville In-
dependent School Dist, 159 S.W.2d
111, 138 Tex, 3-39— Forman v. Bar-
ron, Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 827, er-
ror refused— Shackelford v. Nei-
lon, Civ.App., 100 S.W.2d 1037 —
Traders & General Ins. Co. v.
Lincecum, Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 549,
reversed oil other grounds 107 S.
W.2d 585, 130 Tex. 220— Karr v.
Oockerham, Civ.App.f 71 S.W.2d
905, error dismissed — Morten Inv.
Co. v. Trevey, Civ.App., 8 S.W.2d
527, error dismissed— Humble Oil
& Refining Co. v. Southwestern
Bell Telephone Co., Civ.App., 2 S.
W.2d 488.
33 C.J. p 1142 note 59.
103
43, U.S.— U. S. v. Perry, C.C.A.Ark.,
55 F.2d 819.
Miss.— Moore v. Sykes' Estate, 149
So. 789, 167 Miss. 212.
Mont — Ashley v/ Safeway Stores, 47
P.2d 53, 100 Mont. 312.
N.M. — Jones v. Jernigan, 223 P. 100,
29 N.M. 399.
44* Ark. — Brunson v. Teague, 186 S.
W. 78, 123 Ark. 594.
Fla. — Blue Lake Celery Co. v. Pey-
ton-Lofberg Live Stock Co., 94 So.
862, 84 Fla. 675.
Ga. — Georgia Power Co. v. Woodall,
172 S.E. 76, 48 Ga.App. 85.
Idaho.— Muckle v. Hill. 187 P. 943,
32 Idaho 661.
HI. — Hopper v. Hopper, 41 N.E.2d
786, -314 IlLApp. 572.
Ky.— Jordan v. City of Olive Hill,
162 S.W.2d 229, 290 Ky* 828.
Neb. — Macumber v. Thomas, 207 N.
W. 31, 114 Neb. 290.
N.Y.— Samuel Strauss & Co. v. Katz,
206 N.Y.8. 246, 210 App.Div. 405
— Raby v. Greater New York De-
velopment Co., 135 N.Y.S. 813,
151 App.Div. 72, affirmed 104 N.
E. 1139, 210 N.Y. 586— Phelan v.
New York Central & H. R. R. Co.,
115 N.Y.S. 35— Putzel v. Fargo,
103 N.Y.S. 766— Simon v. Danziger,
98 N.Y.S. 674.
OkL— Steiner v. Steiner, 10 (P.2d 641,
156 OkL 255 — Barstow v. Chattee,
239 P. 622, 112 Okl. 81.
Pa. — Pennsylvania Labor Relations
Board v. Kaufmann Department
Stores, 29 A.2d 90, 345 Pa, 398.
Tex. — Ketch v. Weaver Bros., Com.
App., 276 S.W. 676— Cohen v. City
of Houston, Civ. App., 185 S.W.2d
450— Spradlin v. Gibbs, Civ.App.,
159 S.W.Bd 246 — Corona Petroleum
Co. v. Jameson, Civ. App., 146 S.
W.2d 512, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct — Christie v. Hud-
speth County Conservation and
Reclamation Dist. No. 1, Civ.App.,
64 S.W.2d 978^-Carpenter v. Par-
mer County, OV.APP., 61 S.W.2d
§ 44
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
cient facts legally ascertained,4* and cannot rest on
evidence of an incompetent character,46 or which
was never adduced in court,47 such as matters not
put in evidence of which the court took judicial
notice.48 A judgment may not rest on conjecture
and speculation49 or on mere surmise or suspi-
cion,50 nor may a judgment find support in assump-
tions51 or in possibilities or probabilities falling
short of actual proof.52 While an inference of the
truth of facts essential to a cause of action will sup-
port a judgment rendered in accordance with such
facts,53 the court should not base its judgment on
a state of facts so inadequately developed that it
cannot be determined where inference ended and
conjecture began.54 However, it is not essential to
the validity of a judgment that it rest entirely on
uncontradicted evidence,55 and it is not fatal that a
different conclusion might have been reached on all
Wash. — Johnson v. Goo'denough, 175
OP. 306. 103 Wash. 625.
83 C.J. p 1141 note 57, p 1142 note
58, p 1164 note 96—47 C.J. p 1009
note 88.
Prlma facie ca*«
Even though defendant flies no
answer, plaintiff in civil proceeding,
whether summary or ordinary, must
at least make out prima facie case
before being entitled to Judgment.
— Grosjean v. Wallace Johnson Mo-
tor Co., La.App., 171 So. 184.
Evidence held sufficient to support
(1) Generally.
U.S. — State Bank of New York v.
Henderson County, Ky., C.C.A.Ky.,
35 F.2d 859, certiorari denied Hen-
derson County, State of Kentucky,
v. State Bank of New York, 50 S.
Ct. 245, 281 U.S. 728, 74 L.Ed. 1144,
1145.
Ky.— Small v. Minton, 192 S.W.2d
184.
Tex. — St. Louis -Southwestern Ry.
Co. of Texas v. Neely, Civ.App.,
•296 S.W. 948.
(2) Judgment foreclosing mechan-
ics' liens held not objectionable as
rendered on unverified account to
admissibility of which defendants
excepted, where other facts showed
amount due. — Boozer v. Smith, Tex.
Civ.App., 36 S.W.2d 10S4, error dis-
missed.
(3) A judgment which did not
state whether it <was based on one or
both counts of declaration was
without error if evidence sustained
either count. — Yeats v. Moody, 175
So. 719, 128 Fla. 658.
(4) Judgment solely on evidence
prior to .filing of amended pleadings
bringing in new. parties held not
erroneous where court prior to judg-
ment ordered dismissal of new par-
ties and no new issue was raised .by
amendment. — McCreary v. Falconer,
44 P.2d 303, S Cal.2d 335.
45. Tex. — Motley v. Tom Green
County, Civ,App., 93 S.W.2d 768,
reversed on other grounds Tom
Green County v. Motley, 118 S.W.
2d 306, 132 Tex. 54— Blalock v.
Jones, Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 400, er-
ror dismissed*
46. Mich* — Refrigerating Equipment
Co. v. Finch, 242 N.W. 217. 257
Mich. 023.
Tex.— -Hood v, Robertson, Civ.App.,
33 S.W.2d £82.
W.Va. — Board of Trustees of Lewis
Pilchard Charity Fund v. Mankin
Inv. Co., 193 S.E. 805, 119 W.Va.
391.
Unlawful search and seizure
A civil judgment, in the procure-
ment of which evidence obtained
through unlawful search and seizure
in violation of the Fourth Amend-
ment to federal Constitution is used,
is invalid.— -Rogers v. U. S., C.C.A.R.
I., 97 F.2d 691.
Evidence as to unpleaded matters
(1) Evidence not based on any
pleadings is incompetent and will
not support a judgment, even though
admitted by court without objection.
— Stone v. Boone, Tex.Civ.App., 160
S.W.2d 578, error refused.
(2) Evidence adduced on an issue
not made by the pleadings will not
support a judgment. — Mullinax v.
Snorgrass, Tex.Civ.App., 83 S.W.2d
1080, error refused.
(3) Necessity of pleadings as
well as evidence to support judg-
ment see supra §40.
Evidence which has been stricken
will not sustain a judgment. — In re
Jolly's Estate, 229 IlLApp. 508.
47. Mo.— State ex rel. National
Lead Co. v; Smith, App., 134 S.W.
2d 1061.
Pa.— Riedrich v. Riedrich, 62 Pa.
Super. 189.
Tex. — Church v. Western Finance
Corporation, Civ.App., 22 S.W.2d
1074.
TTnoffered exhibits
Mo. — Carroll v. Carroll, App., 237 S.
W. 843 — Taylor v. Fuqua, 219 S.W.
971, 203 Mo.App. 581.
48. Mo.— -Hume v. Wright, 274 S.W.
741— State ex rel. National Lead
Co. v. Smith, App., 134 S.W.2d
106-1.
49. U.S. — Deposit Guaranty Bank &
Trust Co. v. U. S., D.aMlss., 48
F.'Supp. 869 — Orrill v. Prudential
Life Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Cal.,
44 FjSupp. 902 — Greenwood Com-
press &, Storage Co. v. Fly, D.C.
Miss., 24 F.Supp. 168, reversed on
other grounds, C.C.A., 102 F.2d
600.
Ky.-r-Central Kentucky Natural Gas
Co. v. Williams, 60 S.W.2d 580,
249 Ky. 242.
104
Mich.— Michigan Aero Club v. Shel-
ley, 278 N.W. 121, 283 Mich. 401.
Miss. — Blizzard v. Fitzsimmons, 10
So.2d 343, 193 Miss. 484— Furr v.
Brookhaven Creamery, 192 So. 838,
188 Miss. 1.
Mo. — Locke v. Warden, App., '179 S.
W.2d 624 — Brinker v. Miller, App..
162 S.W.2d 295— Bauer v. Wood,
154 S.W.2d 356, 2-36 Mo.App. 26«6.
Nev. — Richards v. Vermilyea, 175 P.
188,. 42 Nev. 294, rehearing denied
180 P. 121, 42 Nev. 294.
50. Cal.— -De Hart v. Allen, 111 P.2d
342, 43 Cal.App.2d 479.
Miss.— Blizzard v. Fitzsimmons, 10
So.2d 343, 193 Miss. 484.
Existence of fact
If evidence raises only a surmise
or suspicion of the existence of a
fact sought to be established, a
judgment will not be permitted to
rest on such fact — Shell Oil Co. v.
Howth, 159 S.W.2d 483, 138 Tex.
357.
51. La. — Cali v. Cloverland Dairy
Products Co., App., 21 So.2d 166.
Nev. — Richards v. Vermilyea, 175 P.
188, 42 Nev. 294, rehearing denied
180 P. 121, 42 Nev. 294.
52. La. — Evans v. Campbell, App.,
9 So.2d 91.
Mich.— Michigan Aero Club v. Shel-
ley, 278 N.W. 121, 283 Mich. 401.
Miss. — Furr v. Brookhaven Cream-
ery, 192 So. 838, 188 Miss. 1.
Pa.— Winograd v. Coombs, 20 A,2d
315, 342 Pa. 268.
What might have been
Judgments cannot be rendered on
what might have been,^ but there
must be proof fairly tending to e&-
tablish fact alleged. — Salaban 'v.
East St. Louis & Interurban Water
Co., 1 N.E.2d 731, 284 Ill.App, 358.
53. Cal. — Gish v. Los Angeles Ry.
Corporation, 90 P.2d 792, 13 Cal.
2d 570.
54. Miss.— Moore v. Sykes* Estate,
149 So. 789, 167 Miss. 212.
55. Okl.— -Bradley v. Little, 134 P.2d
126, 192 Okl. 121.
Function of Jury
Trial court is under no duty to de-
termine by its judgment truth or
talsity of evidentiary facts, which
is for jury incidentally as a means
of determining its verdict. — South-
ern Pine Lumber Co. v. Whiteman,
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§45
the evidence adduced;56 but a valid judgment may
not be predicated on evidence that cannot be true.57
The insufficiency of supporting evidence has in
some instances been held to render a judgment
void,5'8 but in others it has been regarded as render-
ing the judgment merely erroneous but not void.59
It has been held that a judgment is not rendered
void by irregularities in the taking of proof,6** or by
perjured testimony.61
§ 45. Verdict and Findings
A valid Judgment must be predicated on the deci-
sion, findings, or verdict of the trial court OP Jury.
The issues raised by the pleadings, whether of
law or fact, must be determined in favor of one
party or the other before judgment can be entered;
there* must be either decision or findings by the
court or referee62 or the verdict of a jury.63 Where
a case is tried to the court and a jury is called to
TexJCiv.App.. 104 S.W.*d 635. error
dismissed.
56. Okl.— Bradley v. Little, 134 P.2d
126, 192 Okl. 121.
57. U.S. — V. W. Woolworth Co. v.
Davis, C.C.A.Okl., 41 F.2d 342,
certiorari denied 51 S.Ct 33, 282
U.S. 859. 75 LJEd. 760.
Total disability
Evidence that an insured was to-
tally disabled within the meaning of
a war risk insurance policy could
not support a judgment on the poli-
cy where such evidence could not
have been true in view of the fact
that it was conclusively shown that
during the period of alleged total
disability insured continuously fol-
lowed a substantially gainful occu-
pation. — U. S. v. Perry, .C.OA.Ark.,
55 F.2d *19.
58. La, — Fields v. McAdams, App.,
15 So.2d 24$.
N.J. — Gimbel Bros v. Corcoran, 192
A. 715, 15 N.J.Misc. 5*8.
Tenn.— -Lewis v. Burrow, 127 S.W.2d
795, 23 Tenn.App. 145.
error
A judgment unsupported by testi-
mony is fundamentally erroneous. —
Norvell-Shapleigh Hardware Co. v.
Lumpkin, Tex.Civ.App., 150 S.W.
1194.
59. Ky.— - Starbird v. Blair, 12 S.W.
2d 693, 227 Ky. 258— Reed v. Bun-
yan, 10 S.W.2d 824, 226 Ky. 261
— Sizemore v. Hunter, 269 S.W.
542. 207 Ky. 453— Spencer v. Mil-
liken, 4 Ky.L. 856.
N.T. — Jordan v. Van Epps, 85 N.T.
427— In re Jenkins, 117 N.T.S. 74,
132 App.Div. 339.
Term. — Globe & Republic Ins. Co. of
America v. Shields, 96 S.W.2d 947,
170 Tenn. 485.
33 C.J. p 1141 note 57 [a]— 34 C.J.
p 563 note S3.
Secondary evidence
Judgment based on secondary evi-
dence is not within itself void. —
Busby v. First Nat. Bank, Tex.
Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d 328, error dis-
missed.
80. Ky.— -Haddix v. Walter, 266 S.
W. 631, 205 Ky. 740.
Failure to take down testimony in
writing and file it was held not to
render decree void. — Malone v.
Meres, 109 So. 677. 91 Fla. 709.
61. Colo. — Hunt v. Hunt, 264 P. 662,
83 Colo. 282, error dismissed 49
S.Ct. 186, 278 U.S. 583, 73 L.Ed.
519.
B.C.— Hodge v. Huff, 140 F.2d 686, 78
U.S.App.D.C. 329, certiorari denied
64 S.Ct 946, 322 U.S. 733, 88 L.
Ed. 1567.
Perjury as ground for:
.Collateral attack see infra S 434.
Equitable relief against judgment
see infra § 374.
Opening and vacating Judgment
see infra § 270.
62. Cal. — Easterly v. Cook, 85 P.2d
164, 140 CaLApp. 115.
Ga. — Corpus Juris cited in Holton
v. Lankford, 6 S.E.2d 304, 310,
189 Ga. 506.
Md. — Carozza v. Brannan, 46 A.2d
198.
N.T.— Fuller v. Galeota, 51 N.T.S.2d
101, 268 App.Div. 949— Donate v.
Granite State Fire Ins. Co., 288
N.T.S. 639, 248 App.Div. 736—
Flagg v. Moses, 225 N.T.S. 508,
222 App.Div. 762, motion denied
226 N.T.S. 392, 222 App.Div. 821,
and affirmed 162 N.E. 504, 248 N.
T. 509— Abell v. Hunter, 207 N.T.
S. 203, 211 App.Div. 467, affirmed
148 N.E. 766, 240 N.T. 702— Shaul
v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Mary-
tend. 227 N.T.S. 16-3, 131 Misc. 401,
affirmed 230 N.T.S. 910, 224 App.
Div. 773.
Pa.— Massachusetts Bonding & In-
surance Co. v. Johnston & Harder,
16 A.2d 444, 840 Pa. 253.
S.D. — Central Loan & Investment
Co. v. Loiseau, 239 N.W. 487, 59
S.D. 255.
Utah. — Beneficial Life Ins. Co. v.
Mason, 160 P.2d 734— Mason v.
Mason, 160 P.2d 730 — Evans v.
Shand, 280 <P. 239, 74 Utah 451.
Vt. — Town of Randolph v. Lyon, 175
A. 1, 106 Vt 495.
33 C.J, p 1137 note 37—64 C.J. p 1223
note 32.
Finding* as equivalent to verdict
.For the purposes of judgment, the
trial court's findings of fact have
the effect of a "verdict"-— Watson
105
v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. of
Texas, Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.W.2d 357.
When finding's unnecessary
Findings" of fact by the court have
been held unnecessary where there
is a verdict. — Dye v. Russell, 40 N.
W. 416, 24 Neb. 829.
Conclusions inconsistent
If findings support judgment, in-
consistencies between conclusions
are immaterial and do not vitiate
judgment. — Klein Norton Co. v. Co-
hen, 290 P. 61*, 107 CoLApp. 325.
63. U.S. — Connally v. Louisville &
N. R. Co., C.C.A.Miss., 297 F. 180.
Ala.— Scott v. Parker, 113 So. 495,
216 Ala. 321.
Cal.— Vitimtn Milling Corporation v.
Superior Court In and for Los An-
geles County, 33 P.2d 1016, 1 CaL
2d 116.
Ga.— Corpus Juris cited in Holton v.
Lankford, 6 S.R2d 304, 310, 189
Ga. 506.
Mo. — Newdiger v. Kansas City, App.,
106 S.W.2d 51, affirmed 114 S.W.2d
1047, 342 Mo. 252.
N.C.— Miller v. Dunn, 124 S.E. 746,
188 N.C. 397.
Tex. — American Nat Ins. Co, T.
Points, Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 762,
error dismissed — Dallas Coffin Co.
v. Teager, Civ.App., 19 S.W.2d 156,
error dismissed — Cisco Building
& Loan Ass'n v. Mason, Civ.App.,
12 «S.W.2d 1106— TTair v. Wichita
Valley Ry. Co.. Civ.App., 274 S.W.
247— Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co.
v. Lowrie, CivJLpp^ 271 S.W. 268.
Va.— Scheckler v. Andersom, 29 an
2d 867, 182 Va, 701.
35 C.J. p U37 note 38.
Indispensable step
Where there was no waiver of ft
trial by jury, its verdict was an in-
dispensable step in the proceedings,
and trial court was without powqr
to enter a final judgment in, absence
thereof.— Heath v. Moers, 199 S.E.
519, 171 Va, 397.
Approval of verdict
The trial court must .approve a
verdict before a judgment can be
based on it — Fraka* v. Travelers
Mut Casualty Co.,. 84 P.24 871, 148
Kan. 637.
§ 45
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
make findings as to certain issues, judgment should
be rendered on the basis of findings of the jury ac-
cepted by the court, plus findings of fact made by
the court on other issues and conclusions of law
based on all such findings.64
A valid judgment must rest on findings, express
or implied, on all material issues.65 The findings
of the court66 or the findings or verdict of the ju-
ry67 must be of a character sufficient to support the
judgment rendered, and ordinarily the latter may
not be aided by intendment or reference to extrinsic
facts.68 Although it has been held that it must ap-
pear that there was a direct and affirmative finding
on every issue of fact essential to recovery,6^ it
has also been held that, where the court fails to
make formal findings, every finding justified by the
record and necessary to support the judgment will
be implied,70 and that a general judgment is deemed
64. Cal. — Alphonzo B. Bell Corp. v
Listle, App., 169 P.2d 462.
Matter Juriidictional
Findings on issues other than
those specifically found by jury in
answer to special interrogatories be-
ing necessary to support Judgment,
matter held jurisdiction^, findings
not having been waived. — Central
Loan & Investment Co. v. Loiseau,
239 -N.W. 487, 59 S.D. 265.
65, Mont. — Blaser v. Clinton Irriga
tion Dist, 53 OP.2d 1141, 100 Mont
459.
N.C.— Bborn v. Ellis, 85 S.B.2d -288
225 N.C. 386.
Tex. — English v. Blackwood, Civ.
App., 128 S.W.2d 895, error dis-
missed Judgment correct
Wis.— Witt v. Wonser, 219 N.W. 844,
195 Wis. 593.
Omnibus Hading that material al-
legations in named paragraphs of
defendant's affirmative defense were
not proved was insufficient to sup-
port Judgment— Gordon v. Beck, 239
P. 309. 196 Cal. 768.
General verdict
(1) Judgment cannot be supported
by jury's determination on isolated
issues in answer to special interrog-
atories without general verdict —
Central Loan & Investment Co. v.
Loiseau, 239 N.W. 487, 59 &D. 255.
(2) In action on disability clause
of group life and health policy, ver-
dict for insured for total amount of
his certificate held "general verdict"
which could serve as proper basis
for judgment — Eauitable Life As-
sur. Soc. of U. S. v. Goble, 72 S,W^2d
35, 254 Ky. 614.
Special verdict
Where special verdict contains no
finding on vital issue of fact con-
cerning which testimony is conflict-
ing, it will not support judgment for
plaintiff.— Hintz v. Jackson, 198 N.
W. 475, 51 N.D. 13.
Verdict requiring entry of Judgment
Although jury need not in all cas-
es answer all issues presented, be-
fore judgment can be entered for
either party, the verdict must be
such as to require the entry of a
judgment. — Bowen Motor Coaches v.
Young, Tex.Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 145.
When there wag no finding on
certain evidence, judgment could not
be held to have been based thereon.
— Willard v. Glenn-Colusa Irr. Dist N.H. — Holman v. Kingsbury, 4 N.H.
258 P. 959, 201 Cal. 726. 104.
Judgment on merit*
Fact findings are made by court
only on issues raised by pleadings
and evidence produced on trial, and
Judgments- on merits are entera
only on findings so made, rulings on
demurrer when pleading over is not
served, or motion for Judgment on
pleadings, agreed case, or consent of
party against whom it runs.r—An-
gers v. Sabatinelli, 1 N.W.2d 765
239 Wis. S 64 — Luebke v. City of Wi
tertown, 284 N.W. 519, 230 Wis. 512.
66- CaL — Winstanley v. Ackerman,
294 P. 449, 110 CaLApp. 641.
Mo. — Buschow Lumber Co. v. Un-
ion Pac. H. Co., 276 S.W. 409, 220
Mo.App. 743— Kentling & Kentling
v. Magers, App., 256 S.W. 528.
N.J.— Motor Finance Corporation v.
Tar Asphalt Trucking Co., 21 A.2d
350, 127 N.J.Law 60.
N.Y.— Sutphen v. Morey, 212 N.Y.S.
43, 214 App.Div. 164.
Or.— State v. Warren Const Co., 276
P. 260, 129 Or. 58.
83 C.J. p 964 note 60.
Finding- supported by inadmissible
evidence
Judgment based on finding sup-
ported by inadmissible evidence is
erroneous. — Donnell v. Baker, Tex.
Civ. App., 15 S.W.2d 120, error dis-
missed.,
Judgment held sufficiently supported
(1) Generally.
Cal. — Arena v. Bank of Italy, 228 P.
441, 194 Cal. 195.
Vt-^Campbell v. Ryan, 22 A.2d 502,
112 Vt 238—<3ooley v. Hatch, 124
A, 589, 97 Vt 484.
(2) It has been held that a decree,
finding that certain of the parties
to the suit are owners of the real
estate in controversy, fixing the in-
.eres't of each, and decreeing par-
:ition accordingly, is not defective
because without general findings of
''act. — Rackemann v. Tllton, 86 N.E.
68, 236 111. 49.
67. Colo. — -fflStna Casualty & Surety
Co. v. Finance Service Corporation,
2-26 P. 153, 75 Colo. 432.
HL— -War-field v. Patterson, 135 IlL
App. 307, appeal dismissed 84 N.
E. 176, 233 III. 147.
106
Tex. — Houston, E. & W. T. Ry. Co.
v. Browder, Com. App., 283 S.W.
154 — Union Indemnity Co. v. Col-
orado Nat. Bank, Civ.App., 38 S.W.
2d 257— -Ratcliffe v. Ormsby, Civ.
App., 298 S.W. 930, error denied
Ormsby v. Ratcliffe, 1 S.W.2d 1084,
117 Tex. 242— Jaco v. W. A. Nash
Co., Civ.App., 269 S.W. 1089.
Wash. — Bino v. Veenhuizen, 250 P.
450, 141 Wash. 18, 49 A.L.R. 1297.
Advisory verdict
Jury verdict, effect of which is ad-
visory only, will not support Judg-
ment—Central Loan & Investment,
Co. v. Loiseau, 239 N.W. 487, 59
S.D. 255.
Support by evidence •
Unless Jury's finding is supported
by evidence, judgment should not be
entered thereon. — Houston & T. C.
R. Co. v. Pruitt, Tex.Civ.App., 293
S.W. 627.
Judgment sufficiently supported 1)7
Jury findings or verdict
Cal. — Fairbanks v. Macready, 268
P. 947, 92 Cal.App. 156~<Jadwalla-
der v. Martin, 257 P. 638, 83 Cal.
App. 666.
Okl.— Houser v. Ivey, 249 P. 141. 119
Okl. 42.
Tex.— Martin v. Hays, Civ.App., 86
S.W.2d 796, error refused.
68. Ala.— Capital Cab Co. v. Mont-
gomery Fair, 104 So. 891, 20 Ala.
App. 648, certiorari denied Ex
parte Capital Cab Co., 104 So. 892,
213 Ala. 429.
69. Ala.— Capital Cab Co. v. Mont-
gomery Fair, 104 So. 891, 20 Ala.
App. 648, certiorari denied Ex
parte Capital Cab Co., 104 So. 892.
213 Ala. 429.
Conclusion of ultimate fact
A statement in judgment or de*
cree, entered after hearing conflict-
ng evidence, may be regarded as
conclusion of ultimate fact or at
east of mixed law and fact, even
though same allegation in pleading
might be construed as conclusion of
aw. — Label v. Sullivan, 165 S.W.2d
39, 350 Mo. 286.
0. Mont — Blaser v. Clinton Irr.
Dist. 53 P.2d 1141. 100 Mont 459.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§46
to include a special finding on all issues necessary
to sustain k.7* While a valid judgment may not
be based on findings or verdict as to an immaterial
issue,72 where the judgment otherwise finds suffi-
cient support, the fact that some of the findings are
immaterial or without the issues will not invalidate
it.73 The failure to find as to a particular issue of
fact is immaterial where the fact is admitted.74
A judgment rendered without either verdict or
findings is irregular and erroneous,7^ and has been
held premature and void ;76 but the more generally
accepted view is that such a judgment is merely
voidable and is not absolutely void77 and that fail-
ure of verdict and findings to support the judgment
is a defect subject to waiver.78 Since the power
to decide includes the power to decide erroneously,
a judgment is not void because of an erroneous
finding of fact,79 especially where such error was
inadvertent and harmless and not determinative of
the main issue.80
Decision in writing as basis for judgment. Ordi-
narily a judgment should be entered on the basis
of a decision in writing,81 and may not be predicat-
ed merely on the opinion,82 oral direction,83 or
unsigned memorandum84 of the court, or on an en-
try in the minutes of the clerk;85 but absence of
a decision in due form has been held not fatal to a
judgment.86
E. CONFORMITY TO PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
§ 46. Conformity to Process
A Judgment should conform to the process served, as,
for example, with respect to parties and 'the amount of
the recovery.
A judgment should conform to the writ or proc-
ess served.87 Accordingly, where process is di-
rected to, and served on, a party as an individual,
judgment may not be rendered against him in a
representative capacity, and vice versa.88 Likewise,
process addressed to, and served on, an individual
is not sufficient on which to base a judgment against
•a corporation.89
The amount of recovery must conform to, and is
71. Mass. — In re Rothwell's Estate,
186 N.E. 662. 28-3 Mass. 563— An-
derson v. Bean, 172 N.E. 647, 272
Mass. 432, 72 A.L.R. 959.
Okl.— Riddle v. Brann, 131 P.2d 999,
191 Okl. 596— Stan er v. McGrath,
51 P.2d 795, 174 Okl. 454.
Delay in instituting- stilt
A judgment for plaintiff in action
for accounting and to recover her
one-sixth interest in proceeds of
sale of mining property was a find-
ing against her alleged unneces-
sary delay to instituting action. —
Scott v. Symons, 216 P. 604, 191 Cal.
441.
72. Fla.— Merchants & Bankers
Guaranty Co. v. Downs, 175 So.
704, 128 Fla. 7*7.
N.J. — Motor Finance Corporation v.
Tor Asphalt Trucking Co.. 21 A.2d
350, 127 N.J.Law 60.
N.T. — Miller v. Union Indemnity Co.,
204 N.TjS. 7<30, 209 App.Div. 455.
Tex.— Texas & N. 0. R. Co. v. Shaw,
Civ.App., 284 S.W. 600.
73. Mont— Huffine v. Lincoln, 287
P. 629, 87 Mont 267.
74. N.C. — Seawell v. Person, 76 S.
E. 2, 160 N.C. 291.
33 C.J. p 1138 note 42.
75. Cal.— Easterly v. Cook, 35 P.2d
164, 140 Cal.App. 115.
Ga. — Corpus Juris cited In Holton
v. Lankford, 6 S.E.2d 304, 310,
189 Ga. 506.
Tex. — American Rio Grande Land &
Irrigation <Jo. v. Bellman, Civ.
App., 272 S.W. 550.
Vt— Town of Randolph v. Lyon,
175 A. 1, 106 Vt. 495.
33 C.J. p 964 note 57, p 1138 note
39, p 1170 note 37.
76. Cal. — Casner v. Daily News Co.,
106 P.2d 201, 16 Cal.2d 410— Viti-
min Milling Corporation v. Superi-
or Court in and for Los Angeles
County, SiS P.2d 1016, 1 Cal.2d
116— In re Dodds' Estate, 126 P.
2d 150, 52 Cal.App.2d 287— Easter-
ly v. Cook, 35 P.2d 164, 140 Cal.
App. 115.
77. N.C.— Ellis V. Ellis, 130 S.B. 7,
190 N.C. 418.
Okl.— Mid-Continent Pipe Line. Co.
v. Seminole County Excise Board,
146 P.2d 996, 194 Okl. 40.
Or. — Corpus Juris cited in Glickman
v. Solomon, 12 P.2d 1017, 1018, 140
Or. 358, followed 12 P.2d 1018, 140
Or. 364, overruling Frederick &
Nelson v. Bar£, 134 P. 318, 66 Or.
259, and Clackamas Southern Ry.
Co. v. Vick, 144 P. 84, 72 Or. 580.
Wyo. — Garber v. Spray, 164 P. 840,
25 Wyo. 52.
33 C.J. p 1138 note 40, p 1170 note
38.
78. N.Y. — Corn Exchange Bank v.
Blye, 28 N.E. 805, 119 N.T. 414.
79. U.S.— Jack y. Hood, CXLA.OkL.
39 F.2d 594.
Findings contrary to evidence
have been held not to render the
judgment void. — In re Gardiner's Es-
tate, 114 P.2d 645, 45 CaLApp.2d
559.
80- U.S.— Jack v. Hood, COA-Okl.,
39 F.2d 594.
107
81. S.D. — Sinclair Refining Co. v.
Larson, 214 N.W. 842, 51 SJX 443.
82. N.Y. — Reynolds v. -3Btna Life
Ins. Co., 39 N.T.S. 885, 6 App.Div.
254.
Utah. — Wasatch Oil Refining Co. V.
Wade, 63 P.2d 1070, 92 Utah 50.
Wash. — Adams v. Ernst, 95 P.2d 799,
1 Wash.2d 254.
33 C.J. p 1137 note 87 [b], [c],
83. N.T.— Shaul v. Fidelity & De-
posit Co. of Maryland, 227 N.T.S.
163, 131 Misc. 401, affirmed 230 N.
T.S. 910, 224 App.Div. 773.
84. N.T.— Corley v. Spitzer, 255 N.
T.S. 601, 235 AppJMv. 703— Torge
V. Loomis, 21-3 N.T.S. 924; 215 App.
Div. 862— Woolf v. Woolf, 215 N.
T.S. 89, 126 Misc. 868.
85. N.T.— Electric Boat Co. v. How-
ey, 89 N.T.S. 210, 96 App.Div. 410.
33 OX p 1137 note 37 [b].
86. N.T. — Lyon v. Water Com'rs of
City of Binghamton, 232 N.T.S.
26, 224 App.Div. 568.
87. U.S. — Hughes v. Union Ins. Co.,
Md., 8 Wheat. 294, 5 L.Ed 620.
33 C.J. p 1138 note 44.
88. Fla. — Fllmi v. Lisenby, 1-36 So.
599, 102 Fla. 777.
Divestiture of title
Where, in trespass to try title,
defendant was served as individual
only, judgment divested him of title
individually, but not as trustee. —
Blair v. Carney, Tex.Civ.App., 44 S.
W.2d 1031, error refused.
89. La. — Norwich Union Indemnity
Co. v. Judlln & WMtmire, 7 La.
App. 879.
§47
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.&
limited by, the writ9* Accordingly, where the
judgment is by default, the amount of recovery is
limited to the sum specified in the summons or in-
dorsed on the copy served,91 and a judgment for
a greater sum has b^en held absolutely void,92
although such judgment has also been held to be
regular and valid if it is within the sum demanded
in the declaration.93 Where, however, defendant
appears and answers, the judgment is not limited to
the amount indorsed on the summons.94
§ 47. Conformity to Pleadings and Proofs
The rules respecting conformity of judgments to
the pleadings and proofs, and the applications of
such rules, are considered in detail infra §§ 48-54.
Examine Pocket Parts for later cases.
§48.
General Rules
A Judgment should be supported by both the plead-
ings and the proofs, although in this connection substan-
tial accordance is sufficient, and the pleadings are to
be taken as a whole.
A court may not properly put on its record a
judgment which is not a proper sequence to the
pleadings,95 at least without the consent of all per-
sons affected.96 It is a general rule that a recovery
must be had, if at all, on the facts alleged in the
pleadings; the judgment must conform to, and be
supported by, the pleadings in the case.97 It is
likewise a general rule that facts proved but not
Party against whom process may is-
sue In actions against corporations
see Corporations § 1308.
90. Ala,— Carroll y. Milner, 9 So.
221, 93 Ala. 301.
33 C.J. p 1138 note 45.
91. N.J.— Rips v. Levitan, 130 A.
882, 3 N.J.Misc. 1166, motion de-
nied 132 A. 926, 4 N.J.Hisc. 314.
33 C.J. p 1139 note 46.
92. Kan.— -Basset v. Mitchell, 19 P.
671.
33 C.J. p 1139 note 47.
93. 111.— Plato v. Turrill, 18 HI. 273.
33 C.J. p 11-39 note 48.
94. N.Y.— Valencia Realty Co. v.
Seely, 192 A. 717, 15 N.J.Misc. 520.
33 C.J. p 1139 note 49.
95. Ind. — Indianapolis Real Estate
Board v. Willson, 187 N.E. 400, 98
Ind.App. 72.
Mo. — Owens v. McCleary. App., 273
S.W. 145.
Tex. — Automobile Finance Co. v.
Bryan, Civ. App., <3 S.WV2d 835 —
•Smith v. Scott, Civ.App., 261 S.W.
1089.
Va.— Dulaney v. Smith, 149 S.E. 441,
153 Va. 118.
3i3 C.J. p 1139 note 51.
A court of record, in order to act,
must find a basis in the pleading
for its action. — Green v. Duncan,
Tex.Civ.App., 1-34 S.W.2d 744.
96. TJ.-S, — Sylvan Beach v. Koch, C.
C.A.MO., 140 F.2d 852.
S3 C.J. p 11*39 note 51 [a}.
Issues broadened by consent see in-
fra § 50,
The rule cannot be circumvented
by allowing amendments to the
pleadings to change a cause of ac-
tion after judgment, or by giving
notice of the entry of judgment, or
by entertaining motions to vacate
a judgment after it has been enter-
ed.— Sylvan Beach v. Koch, supra.
97. US.— Mutual Life Ins. Co. v.
Bingley, Wash., 100 F. 408, 40 C.
C.A. 459, 49 UR.A. 132, reversed
.on other grounds 22 S.Ct 937, 184
U.S. 695, 46 L.Bd. 763— U. S. v.
E. H. Bailey & Co., 32 C.C.P.A.
Customs 89.
Ala. — Corpus Juris cited In Chand-
ler v. IPrice, 15 So.2d 462, 463, 244
Ala, 667.
Ariz.— White v. Hamilton, 299 P. 124,
38 Ariz. 256.
Cal.— Paulin v. Paulin, 102 P.2d 809,
39 Cal. App. 2 d 180.
Ga.— Westberry v. Reddish, 172 S.B.
10, 178 Ga. 116 — Davis v. Mowers,
114 S.B. 200, 154 Ga. 260.
111.— -Continental 111. Nat Bank &
Trust Co. of "Chicago v. Sever, 65
N.E.2d 385, 393 111. 81.
Ind. — Earl Park -State Bank v. Low-
mon, 161 N.B. 675, 92 Ind.App. 25
— Chicago, T. H. & S. B. Ry. Co.
v. Collins/ 142 N.B. 634, 82 Ind.
App. 41, modified on other grounds
143 N.E. 712, 82 Ind.App. 41.
&y. — Cawood v. Cawood's Adm'x,
147 S.W.2d 88, 285 Ky. 201— City
of Owingsville v. Ulery, 86 S.W.
2d 706, 260 Ky. 792— Ratliff v. Sin-
berg, 79 S.W.2d 717, 258 Ky. 203
— Corpus Jails cited la Barnett
v. Robinson, 79 S.W.2d 699, 700,
258 Ky. 225— McGill v. Dunaway,
71 S.W.2d 4-35, 254 Ky. 234— Wak-
enva Coal Co. v. Johnson, 28 S.W.
2d 737, 234 Ky. 558.
Mass. — Coughlin v. Coughlin, 45 N.
B.2d '388, 312 Mass. 452— Geffien v.
Paletz, 43 N.B.2d 133, 312 Mass.
48.
Miss. — Holmes v. Ford, 176 So. 524,
179 Miss. 673— Newell Contracting
•Co. v. Flynt, 161 So. 298, 172 Miss.
719, motion overruled 161 So. 743,
172 Miss. 719.
Mo. — Grafeman Dairy Co. v. North-
western Bank, 288 'S.W. 359, 315
Mo. 849— McCaskey v. Duffley, 78
S.W.2d 141, 229 MoApp. 289, trans-
ferred; see 73 S.W.2d 188, 1335 Mo.
•38-3 — Texas Empire (Pipe Line Co.
v. Stewart, App., 35 S.W.2d 627,
reversed on other grounds 55 S.
W.2d 283, 331 Mo. 525— Lewis v.
Scholl, Appw 244 S.W. 90.
Mont— Alley v. Peeso, 290 P. ^238,
108
88 Mont 1— Welch v. All Persons,
Etc., 254 P. 179, 78 Mont 370.
Neb. — Fidelity Finance Co. v. West-
fall, 254 N.W. 710, 127 Neb. 56—
Domann v. Domann, 208 N.W. 669,
114 Neb. 563.
0kl.— Corpus Juris cited in. Okla-
homa City v. Robinson, 65 P.2d
531, 533, 179 Okl. 309.
Pa. — Bowman v. Gum, Inc., 184 A.
258, 321 (Pa. 516.
Tenn.— Fidelity-Phenix Fire Iris. Co.
of New York v. Jackson, 181 S.
W.2d 625, 181 Tenn. 453— Phifer v.
Mutual Ben. Health & Accident
AssM, 148 S.W.2d 17, 24 Tenn.App.
600.
Tex. — Wilke v. Finn, Com. App., 39
S.W.2d 836— Nalle v. Harrell, 12
S.W.2d 550, 118 Tex. 149— Queen
Ins. Co. v. Galveston, H. & S. A.
Ry. Co., Com. App., 296 -S.W. 484,
reheard « B.W.2d 419—JPhelps v.
Connellee, Com.App,., 285 S.W. 1047
— Johnson Aircrafts v. Wilborn,
Civ.App., 190 S.W.2d 426-JClty of
Beaumont v. Calder Place Corpo-
ration, 180 S.W.2d 189, reversed on
other grounds 183 S.W.2d 713, 143
Tex. 244 — -Doughty v. DeFee, Civ.
App., 152 S«W.2d 404, error refused
— Rudolph v. Smith, Civ.App., 148
S.W.2d 225— Butler v. Price, Civ.
App., 138 S.W.2d 301— De Walt v.
Universal Film Exchanges, Civ.
App., 132 S.W.2d 421, error dis-
missed, judgment correct — Rob-
bins v. Robtoins, Civ.App., 125 S.W.
2d 666 — Fort Worth & Denver City
Ry. Co. v. Reid, Civ.App., 115 S.W.
2d 1156— City of Floydada vt Gil-
liam, Civ.App., Ill S.W.2d 761 —
Jones-O'Brien, Inc., v. Lloyd, Civ.
App., 106 'S.W.2d 1069, error dis-
missed— Hartford Accident & In-
demnity Co. v. Moore, Civ.App.,
102 S.W.2d 441, error refused —
Houston Gas & Fuel Co. v. Sprad-
lin, Clv.App., 55 S*.W.2d 1086—
American Surety Co. of New Totfc
v. Alamo Iron Works, Civ. App., 29
S.W.2d 493, reversed on other
grounds, Com. App., 36 S.W.2d 714
—House v. Rogers. Civ.App., 23
49 C.J.S,
JUDGMENTS
§ 48
pleaded will not support the judgment,98 and this is
true, even though such facts are found by verdict
or finding.^ An affirmative defense not pleaded is
dence adduced,2 in connection with facts admitted
by the parties in the pleadings or otherwise,8 and
facts pleaded but not proved or admitted on the
unavailable to support the judgment1 *• * •« • < AH - . , .
** ju-ugmcuu ^^ ^ not support a judgment,4 although in this
A judgment must also be sustained by the evi- connection allegations not necessary to the state-
SW.2d 414, affirmed, Com.App.,
Rogers v. House, 39 S.W.2d 1111—
Bray v. Bray, Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d
525 — Bitter v. Bexar pounty, Civ.
App., 266 S.W. 224, reversed on
other grounds. Com.App., 11 S.W.
2d 163 — Stevenson v. Baisrow, Civ.
App., 265 S.W. 602— Metting v.
Metting, Civ.App., 261 S.W. 151.
modified on other grounds 262 S.
W. 188— Scott v. Lott, Civ.App.,
247 S.W. 685— Scott v. State, 102
S.W.2d 434, 132 Tex.Cr. 79.
Utah.— Jeffries v. Third Judicial
Dist. Court of Salt Lake County,
63 P.2d 242, 90 Utah 525— Stevens
& Wallis v. Golden OPorphyry
Mines Co., 18 P.2d 90S, 81 Utah
414 — People's Bonded Trustee v.
Wright, 272 P. 200, 72 Utah 587.
Vt.— Ackerman v. Carpenter, 59 A.2d
922, 113 Vt 77. •
W.Va.— George v. Male, 153 S.E. 507,
109 W.Va. 222.
Wyo. — Corpus Juris cited in Urbach
v. Urbach, 7-3 F.2d 958, 962, 52
Wyo. 207, 113 A.L.R. 889.
13 C.J. p 798 note 65—19 C.J. p
1209 note 20, p 1240 note 19—
24 C.J. p 884 note 44—26 C.J. p
570 note 23—33 C.J. p 144 note 83,
p 1139 note 52, p 1141 note 53,
p 1156 note 58—42 C.J. p 142 note
48—47 C.J. p 430 note 63, p 1009
note 87—51 (XJ. p 360 note 70.
"Unwarranted conclusion of law
A judgment cannot be based on a
pleaded conclusion of law not war-
ranted by the facts pleaded. — Hurst
v. Crawford, Tex.Civ,App., 216 S.W.
284.
Elimination of aspect of bill
After complainant has been forced
by demurrer to eliminate aspect of
bill, he cannot be required to accept
decree under that aspect.— Kelly v.
Carmichael, 129 So. 81, 221 Ala. 371.
When, rule inapplicable
"The rule that Judgment must be
in accordance with the allegations
contained in the pleadings does not
apply when the evidence, though
admitted to prove these allegations,
shows beyond dispute that a party
is responsible for a wrong or has a
right which is not alleged, and
that 'further opportunity to defend
would be futile and a source only
of delay and possible injustice."—
Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S.
v. Kevitt, 54 N.YJ3.2d 6413, $50.
Order void on its face,
It has been held that an order
is not void on its face merely be-
cause it is not in accordance with
the petition on which it is based.—
Mueller v. Elba Oil Co., 130 P.2d
961, 21 Cal.2d 188.
9& Conn.— De Lucia v. Valente, 75
A. 150, $3 Conn. 107.
Fla.— Vance v. Bliss Properties, 149
So. 870, 109 Fla. 388.
ia— Walsh v. Walsh, 24 N.B.2d 341,
372 111. 254— Rolinitfs v. Rolinitis,
167 N.B. 68, 335 111. 260.
Mo. — Massey-Harris Harvester Co.
v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kan-
sas City, 48 S.W.2d 158, 226 Mo.
App. 916.
Tenn.— Furst & Furst v. Freels, 9
Tenn.App. 423— HarreU v. Alabama
Great Southern R., 5 Tenn.App.
471.
Tex.— Starr v. Ferguson, 166 S.W.2d
130, 140 Tex 80— Liner v. U. S.
Torpedo Co., Com.App., 12 S.W.2d
552, reheard 18 S.W.2d 519— Dalton
v. Davis, Com.App., 1 S.W.2d 571
—Austin Bros. v. Patton, Com.
App., 294 S.W. 537— Murphy v.
Bain, Civ.App., 142 S.W.2d 598—
Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v.
Jenkins, Civ.App., 63 S.W.2d 563
— American Surety Co. of New
York v. Alamo Iron Works, Civ.
App., 29 &W.2d 493, reversed on
other grounds, Com. App., 36 S.W.
2d 714 — Baptist Missionary and
Educational Convention of State
of Texas v. Knox, Civ.App., 23
S.W.2d 781— Globe Laundry v. Mc-
Lean, Civ.App., 19 «.W.2d 94—
National Rys. of Mexico v. Escon-
trias, Civ.App., 19 S.W.2d 75—
Brewton v. Butler, Civ. App., 12
S.W.2d 228 — San Antonio Machine
& Supply Co. v. Allen, Civ.App.,
268 S.W. 532— Schaff v. Perdue,
Civ.App., 254 S.W. 151— Griffith v.
Gohlman, Lester & Co., Civ.App.,
25-3 S.W. 591— Flemtog-Stitzer
Road Bldg. Co. v. Boyett, Civ.App.,
253 S.W. 561.
W.Va. — Bringardner v. Rollins, 185
S.E. 665, 102 W.Va. 584.
33 C.J. p 1141 note 54.
99. Conn. — Farnham v. Schreiber,
149 A. 393, 111 Conn. 38.
N.C. — Simms v. (Sampson, 20 SJ3.2d
554, 221 N.C. 379.
Tex. — Butler v. Price, Clv^App., 138
S.W.2d 301— National Life & Ac-
cident Ins. Co. v. Casas, Civ.App.,
36 S.W.2d 523— Dickson v. Kilgore
State Bank, CivJVpp., 244 S.W. 892,
reversed on other grounds, Com.
App., 257 S.W. 867.
133 C.J. p 1141 note 55.
Mass. — Nashua River Paper Co.
v. Lindsay, 136 N.E. 358, 242 Mass.
206.
33 C.J. p 1144 note 75.
109
"When reoonventloiL&l demand unnec-
essary
Where a court is authorized to
grant the relief prayed for either
absolutely or on a condition, the
granting of the relief only on con-
dition is a mere refusal to grant
plaintiff the full measure of relief
prayed for, and no reconventional
demand on the part of defendant is
needed to authorize such judgment.
— Francez v. Francez, 94 So. 203,
152 La. 666.
2. Colo. — -Minchew v. West, 241 P.
541, 78 Colo. 254.
111. — Brock v. Pomeroy, 27 NJE.2d
56, 305 ULApp. 127— Pley v. Lav-
ette, 167 IlXApp. 494.
La.— Thompson v. State Assur. Co.,
Limited, of Liverpool, England,
107 So. 489, 160 La. 683.
N.T.— Claris v. Richards, 183 NJBL
904, 260 N.Y. 419— Antonacchio V.
Consolidated Foreign Exchange
Corporation, 197 N.T.-S. 150, 203
App.Div. 621.
S.C.— Blease v. Charleston & W. C.
Ry. Co., 144 S.E. 233, 146 S.C. 496.
Tex.— City of Beaumont v. Calder
Place Corporation. Civ.App., 180
S«W.2d 189, reversed on other
grounds 183 S.W.2d 713, 143 Tex.
244 — Riggle v. Automobile Finance
Co., Civ.App., 276 S.W. 439— Ben-
son v. Adams, Civ.App., 274 S.W.
210, reversed on other grounds,
Cozn.App., 285 S.W. 818— R. B.
George Machinery Co. v. Spear-
man, Civ.App., 273 S.W. 640.
Wyo. — Finance Corporation of Wyo-
ming v. Commercial Credit Co., 283
P. 1100, 41 Wyo. 198.
13 C.J. p 798 note 65—19 C.J. p 1210
note 21, p 1240 note 20—24 C.J. p
885 note 45—26 C.J. p 570 note 24
—33 C.J. p 1141 note 57—47 C.J.
p 430 note 64.
Terms of unambiguous contract
Judgment on an unambiguous
written contract should be rendered
according to its terms, although evi-
dence is admitted to explain, add to,
and vary its meaning. — Cease v. De
Hek, 253 P. 232, 122 Kan. 699.
3. N.T. — J. D. L. Corporation v.
Bruckman, 11 N.T.S.2d 7'41, in
Misc. 3.
Tex.— Baker v. Rose, CivJV.pp., 179
S.W.2d 339, modified on other
grounds 183 &W.2d 438, 143 Tex.
438.
33 C.J. p 1142 note 58. .
4. £y<— Wunderlich v. Ecott, 46 S.
W.2d -753, 242 Ely. 481.
La.— Pitre v. Guidry, Ajpp., 147 So,
767.
§ 48
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ment of a cause of action and constituting mere
surplusage need not be proved, it being sufficient
that the judgment is supported by proof of the
essential allegations.* In other words, the judg-
ment must conform to, and be supported by, both
the pleadings and the proofs,6 and be in accordance
with the theory of the action on which the plead-
ings are framed and the case was tried.7 This rule
is of universal application, and whether the ac-
tion or suit is at law, in equity, or under the code,
the judgment must be secundum allegata et proba-
ta.8 Where the facts pleaded and proved by plain-
tiff constitute a cause of action, a judgment may be
rendered in his favor,9 notwithstanding some of the
allegations made by him are not found to be true.10
A judgment inconsistent with admitted or con-
clusively established facts is erroneous;11 a valid
NVT. — Klepper v. Seymour House j
Corporation of Ogdensburg, 209 N.
T.S. 67, 212 App.Div. 277.
Tex.— New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
v. Harrington, Com.App., 290 S.
W. 726-r Sproles v. Rosen, Civ.
App., 47 S.W.2d Ml, affirmed 84 S.
W.2d 1001, 126 Tex 51.
33 C.J. p 1142 note 59.
Verified account
In an action based on an itemized
account the correctness of which is
duly verified, and under a statute
providing that to the absence of a
verified denial the account should be
taken as true, it *s not necessary
to the validity of a judgment oa
the account, where the required de-
nial has not been made, that other
evidence be introduced.— Cusack v.
McMasters, 279 P. 329, 137 Okl. 278.
5. Mo.— Campbell v. Missouri Pac.
B. Co., 25 S.W. 936. 121 Mo. 340,
42 Am.S.R. 530, 25 L.R.A. 175.
33 C.J. p 11*44 note 74.
e. U.S.— Webster Bisenlohr, Inc., v.
Kalodner, C.C.A.Pa., 145 P.2d 316,
certiorari denied Kalodner v. Web-
ster Bisenlohr, Inc., 65 S.Ct. 1404,
325 U.-S. 867, 89 L.Ed. 1986— Dry-
brough v Ware, C.C.A,Ky., Ill F.
2d 548.
Cal.— Pacific Mortg. Guaranty Co. v.
Rosoff, 67 P.2d 110, 20 Cal.App.2d
383.
Conn. — Tress v. Pivorotto, 133 A. 85,
104 Conn. -389.
Fla.— Corpus JtuAs quoted in Edgar
v. Bacon, 122 So. 107, 109, 97 Fla.
679, followed in Wright v. Tatari-
an, 181 "So. 133, 100 Fla. 1366.
Ga.— Griffeth v. Haygood, 161 S.B.
831, 174 Ga. 22.
m._Wood v. Wood, 64 N.E.2d 385,
327 111. App. 557 — Kohler v. Kohler,
61 N.B.2d 687, 326 IlLApp. 105—
First Trust Joint Stock Land
Bank of Chicago v. Cutler, 12 N.E.
2d 705, 293 Ill.App. 354.
Iowa.— Bennett v. Oreenwalt, 286 N.
W. 122, 226 Iowa 1113.
Ky.— Wunderlich v. Scott, 46 S.W.2d
753, 242 Ky. 481— Phelps v. Phelps,
24 S.W.2d 584, 232 Ky. 685— Ad-
Idas v. Pikeville Supplying &
Planing Mill Co., 295 S.W. 440, 220
Ky. 476 — Lassiter v. Farris, 259 S,
W. 696, 202 Ky. 330.
3£iss. — Kennington-Saenger Theatres
*. State ex reL Disk Atty., 18 So.
2d 433, 196 Miss. 841. 153 A.L.R.
883.
Mo.— Sinclair Refining Co. v. W]yatt,
149 'S.W.2d -358, 347 Mo. 862— Frie-
del v. Bailey, 44 S.W.2d 9, 829 Mo.
22.
Mont.— tSecurity State Bank of
Havre v. Mariette, 223 P. 114, 69
Mont. 536.
Neb.— Coleman v. Beck, 5 N.W.2d
104, 142 Neb. 13.
N.J. — Gunther v. Morey Larue Laun-
dry Co., 29 A.2d 713, 129 N.J Law
345, affirmed 33 A.2d 893, 130 N.J.
Law 557 — Sivak v. City of New
Brunswick, « A.2d 566, 122 N.J.
Law 197.
N.T.— Lifton v. Title Guarantee &
Trust Co., 31 N.T.S.2d 94, 26-3 App.
Div. 3 — Electric Equipment Cor-
poration v. Delco Appliance Corpo-
ration, 297 N.T.S. 498, 252 App.Div.
1— Dobbins v. Pratt Chuck Co., 206
N.Y.S. 5, 210 App.Div. 278, revers-
ed on other grounds 151 N.E. 1-46,
242 N.T. 106— People v. Roney, 230
N.T.S. 583, 132 Misc. 746.
Pa.— In re Miller, Com.Pl., 32 Del.
Co. 566.
S.C. — Jones v. Blbert, 34 'S.E.2d 796,
206 S.C. 508— Parker Peanut Co.
v. Felder, 34 S.E.2d 488, 207 S.C.
€3 — Corpus Juris quoted in Little
v. Rivers, 185 S.E. 174, 175, 180 S.
C. 149.
Tenn.— Dixie Ohio Exp. Co. v. But-
ler, 166 S.W.2d 614, 179 Tenn. 358.
Tex. — -Page v. Key, Civ.App., 175 S.
W.2d 443, error refused — Street v,
Cunningham, Civ.App., 156 S.W.2d
541-r-Day v. Grayson County -State
Bank, Civ.App., ISS S.W.2d 599—
Barrett v. Commercial Standard
Ins. Co., Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d -315
—Southern Underwriters v. Blair,
Oiv.App., 144 S.W.2d 641— Guthrie
v. Gossett, Civ.App., 142 S.W.2d
410— American Nat Ins. Co. v.
Sutton, Civ.Aipp., 130 S.W.2d 441 —
Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Ow-
ings, Civ.App., 128 S.W.2d 67—
Railroad Commission of Texas v.
Royal Petroleum Corporation, Civ.
App., 93 S.W.2d 761, error dismiss-
ed— Penrod v. Von Wolff, Civ.App.,
90 S.W.2d 859— Barnhart Mercan-
tile Co. v. Bengel, Civ.App., 77
S.W.2d 295— Perkins v. Campbell,
Civ.App., 63 S.W.2d 567— Farm &
Home Savings & Loan Ass'n of
Missouri v. Muhl, Civ.App., 37 S
W.2d 316, error refused — Sibley v,
no
Perkins Bros. Dry Goods Co., Civ.
App., 12 S.W.2d 601— Hall v. Brad-
ley, Civ.App., 282 S.W. 874 — Grif-
fith v. Gohlman, Lester & Co., Civ.
App., 253 <S.W. 591.
Vt.— In re Prouty's Estate, 165 A.
566, 105 Vt 66.
Va. — Richmond Engineering & Mfg.
Corporation v. Loth, 115 S.E. 774,
135 Va. 110. •
1 C.J. p 1009 note 7—33 C.J. t> 1142
note 60 — 42 C.J. p 1287 note 14
—51 C.J. p 269 note 25.
Belief not dependent on arguments
"It is the pleadings and the de-
veloped facts within the pleadings
that courts are obliged to follow and
to which the parties and counsel
must be held; not arguments." —
Mississippi Power & Light Co. v.
Pitts, 179 So. 363, 365, 181 Miss. 344.
7. Fla. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Edgar v. Bacon, 122 So. 107, 109,
97 Fla. 679, followed in Wright v.
Tatarian, 131 So. r33, 100 Fla.
1366.
Iowa. — Bennett v. Green wait, 286 N.
W. 722, 226 Iowa 1113.
S.C. — Corpus Juris quoted in Little
v. Rivers, 185 S.E. 174, 175, 180
S.C. 149.
33 C.J. p 1143 -note 61.
8. Fla. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Edgar v. Bacon, 122 So. 107, 109,
97 Fla. 679, followed in Wright v.
Tatarian, 131 So. 133, 100 Fla.
1366.
33 C.J. p 1143 note 62.
9. Miss. — Southeastern Exp. Co. v.
Namie, 181 So. 515, 182 Miss. 447.
Wash. — Exeter Co. v. Holland Corpo-
ration, 23 P.2d 864, 172 Wash. 323.
33 C.J. p 1143 note 67.
In courts where written pleadings
are not required, plaintiff is entitled
to any appropriate relief on facts
established, unless on the trial he
has adopted and insisted on a con-
trary theory of the case. — Troxler
v. Bevlll, 3 S.E.2d 8, 215 N.C. 640.
10. Cal. — Herman v. Glasscock, 155
P.2d 912, 38 Cal. App. 2 d 98.
11. Cal.— California Stearns Co. v*
Treadwell, 256 P. 594, 83 CaLApp.
69.
Kan.— Wright v. Jenks, 261 «P. 840,
124 Kan. 604.
Ky. — Quaack v. Kentucky Title Trust
Co., 106 S.W.2d 589, 268 Ky. 498.
N.Y.— Weiss v. McKinner, 59 N.Y.S.2d
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
49
judgment, inconsistent with his own allegations and
admissions, cannot be rendered for a party.1* If
defendant admits liability for a particular sum,
judgment should be rendered against him for at
least such sum, and a judgment of nonsuit, dis-
missal, or the like is erroneous.13 A judgment for
a defendant who fails to answer a complaint stat-
ing a cause of action is erroneous, because the de-
fault admits the case alleged.1* A judgment is void
for inconsistency where it grants relief both to
plaintiff and to defendant on inconsistent grounds.15
In determining whether or not the pleadings sup.
port the judgment, they must be taken as a whole,16
and construed so as to support the judgment, if
capable of such a construction.1? Substantial ac-
cordance is sufficient;18 and to upset a judgment
for variance between it and the pleadings in a con-
tested case, it has been held that there must be an
entire abandonment of the very substance of the
dispute to which defendant was summoned, and the
substitution of another which he could not have
anticipated, and which he had no opportunity to
meet19 If defendant merely files an answer and
defaults thereafter, a closer registry between plead-
ing and judgment is exacted than after a contested
trial.20 The presumption is that the relief granted
is authorized by the pleadings, and the burden is on
him who attacks the judgment to show that it was
not.21
§ 49. Limitation to Relief Sought by
Pleadings
a. In general
b. Affirmative relief to defendant
a. In General
As a general rule the relief awarded should conform
to that sought by the pleadings.; but this rule does not
always apply, particularly where there is a prayer for
general relief or where the statutes have broadened the
scope of permissible relief, and In many cases the court
has power to grant any relief within the issues formed
by the pleadings and justified by the evidence, regard-
less of the specific relief demanded.
Ordinarily, and in the absence of a statute to the
contrary, the relief to be awarded by a judgment
should be consistent with, and limited to, that sought
659— Levlne v. Weiss, 16 N.Y.S.2d
1003.
Tex. — Dashiel v. Lott, ConouApp., 243
S.W. 1072, rehearing: denied 246
S.W. xvi — Great Southern Life
Ins. Co. v. Dorough, Civ.App., 100
S.W.2d 772.
33 C.J. p 1143 note 63.
Legal effect of admitted facts
Where all the material foots are
established by admissions in the
pleadings, the Judgment must be In
accordance with the legal effect of
such facts regardless of the testi-
mony on other issues, unless by ac-
tual or implied consent the parties
have tried the case on other sub-
stituted issues.— Reiff v. Mullholland,
62 N.E. 124, 65 Ohio St. 178—83 C.
J. p 1143 note $5.
Indebtedness of plaintiff
(1) In action by borrowers
against lender of money, where un-
controverted proof showed that
plaintiffs were indebted to defend-
ants in excess of their claim, enter-
ing judgment for plaintiff was error.
— Brecht v. Bankers' Sec. Co., 1«33
S.E. 79, 101 W.Va. 533.
(2) In action to have chattel mort-
gage declared void, court properly
gave defendant judgment for amount
of debt which plaintiff admitted.—
Wilson v. Standard Fertilizer Co.,
166 S.E. 76, 203 N.C. 359.
12. Mo. — Drecksbage v. Dreckshage,
176 -S.W.2d 7, 352 Mo. 78.
33 C:J. p 1156 note 59.
13. U.S. — Southern Pac, Co. v. Van
Hoosear, C.OA.Cal., 72 F.2d 908.
Ky.— Olark v. Mason, 95 S.W.2d 292,
264 Ky. 683.
N.C.— Penn v. King, 162 S.B. 376, 202
N.C. 174.
Tex— Illinois Bankers' Life Ass'n
v. Floyd, Com. App., 222 S.W. 967.
33 C.J. p 1143 note 63 [a], [b].
14. Tex.— Miller v. Nichols, Civ.
App., 258 S.W. 855.
3-3 C.J. p 1143 note $4.
15. Mo. — King v. Brockschmidt, 3
Mo.App. 571.
33 C.J. p 1168 note 29.
16. Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v.
Busha, 66 P.2d 64, 67, 179 Okl.
505.
•S.C.— Little v. Rivers, 185 SJ3J. 174,
180 S.C. 149.
Tex. — Corpus Juris cited in Cavers
v. Sioux Oil & Refining Co., Com.
App., 49 S.W.2d 862, 868.
Utah.— La Bee v. Smith, 229 P. 88, 64
Utah 242. '
33 CJ. p 1144 note 77.
Pleadings of lota parties
In determining the relief which
may be accorded, it is proper to
take into consideration the plead-
ings of both parties. — Buchanan v.
Davis, Tex.Com.App., 60 S.W.2d 192
— Cavers v. Sioux Oil & Refining Co.,
Tex.Com.App., 49 S.W.2d 862— New
Home Sewing Mach. Co. v. Withrow,
TexCiv.App., 143 S.W.2d 971— Orms-
by v. Ratcliff, Tex.Civ.App., 22 S.W.
2d 504, affirmed Ormsby v. Ratcliffe,
Com.App., 36 S.W.2d 1005—33 C.J, P
1168 note 28 [a] (2).
Ill
Adverse interest* between code,
fendants may be passed on, and a
decree rendered between them
grounded on the pleadings and proof
between plaintiff and defendants and
founded on and connected with the
subject matter in litigation between
plaintiff and one or more of defend-
ants, even though no cross pleadings
be filed, especially where the rights
as between plaintiff and one of the
defendants cannot be adjudicated
without determining rights as be-
tween codefendants, — Gillam v. Co-
line Oil Co., 277 P. 639, 136 OkL
257.
17. Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v.
Busha, 66 P.2d 64, 67, 179 OkL
505.
S.C.— Little v. Rivers, 185 S.E. 17-4,
180 S.C. 149.
33 C.J. p 1144 note 78.
18. S.C. — Little v. Rivers, supra.
33 C.J. p 1144 note 79.
19. U.S. — Armand Co. v. Federal
Trade Commission, C.CJL, 84 P.2d
97-3, certiorari denied 56 S.Ct 309,
296 U.-S. 650, 80 L.Ed. 463, certio-
rari denied 57 S.Ct 189, 299 U.S.
597, 81 L.Ed; 440, rehearing denied
57 S.Ct 234, 299 U.S. 623, 81 L.Ed.
459.
20. U.S.— Armand Co. v. Federal
Trade Commission, supra, '
21. Iowa. — American Emigrant Co.
v. Fuller, 50 N.W. 48, 83 Iowa 599.
33 C.J. p 1144 note 80.
49
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
by the pleadings22 or incidental thereto.23 Where
plaintiff has asked only for specific relief, or relief
as to a specific subject matter, usually no more ex-
tensive or different relief may be accorded to him.24
However, particularly under statutes or codes in
effect so providing, the demand or prayer for relief
does not always or necessarily determine or limit
the relief which may be granted,25 and in many cas-
es the rule is stated more broadly to the effect that
any relief fairly within the issues formed by the
pleadings and justified by the evidence may be giv-
en, regardless of the specific relief asked or the
form of the action.26 Accordingly it has been held
that, notwithstanding a pleading asks for the wrong
22, tr.S.— iSylvan Beach v. Koch, C.
C.A.MO., 140 F.2d 852.
Ariz. — Wall v. Superior Court of Ya-
vapai Comity. 89 P.2d 624, 63 Ariz.
344.
Gad.— Lewis V. Kohls, App.. 1-60 P.
2d 199.
Conn. — Shaw T. Sj>elk«, 14T A. 675,
110 Conn. 208.
Fla. — G-ralynn Laundry T. Virginia
Bond & Mortgage Corporation, 163
So. 706, 121 Fla. 812.
Ga.— Burton v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 172 S.E. 41, 177. Ga. 899,
transferred, see 173 S.E. 922, 48
GauApp. 828.
Idaho.— Mason v. Pelkes, 59 P.2d
1087, 57 Idaho 10, certiorarl denied
Pelkes T. Mason, 67 S.Ct. 319, $99
U.S. 615, 81 LJEd. 4&3— Angel v.
Mellea, 285 P. 461, 48 Idaho 750.
I1L— (Barker T. Gray, 148 N.E. 325,
317 111. 468— Wood v. Wood, 64
N.E.2d -385, 327 IlLApp. «57.
Iowa. — Federal Land Bank of Omaha
v. Jefferson, 295 K.W. 855, 229
Iowa 1054, 1*32 A.L.R. 1282— In re
Collicott's Estate, 283 N.W. 869,
226 Iowa 106.
Ky.— Jones v. York, 185 S.W.2d 40«4,
299 Ky. 30«,
La. — Mente & Co. v. Roane Sugars,
6 So.2d 731, 199 La. 636— Peters v.
Norris, 185 So. 481, 191 La. 436—
Le Blanc v. Cristlna, 140 So. 149,
19 La.App. 397.
Miss. — Kennlngton-Saenger Theatres
v. State ex rel. District Attorney,
18 So.2d 488, 196 Miss. 841r 153 A.
L.R. 883.
Mo.— Brown v. Wilson, 1S5 6.W.24
176, 348 Mo. 658— -Hecker v. Bleish,
3 S.W.2d 1008, 319 Mo. 149.
N.M.— Van Sickle v. Keck, 81 P.2d
707, 42 N.M. 450.
Pa. — Eddy v. Borough of Ashley, 125
A. 308, 281 Pa. 4.
Tex. — Grain v. Adams, dv.App., 120
S.W.2d 290— Hake v. Dilworth,
Civ.App., 96 S:W.2d 121, error dis-
missed—Lokey T. Elliott. Civ.App,,
88 S.W.2d 126— Elgin v. Banks,
Civ.App., 38 S.W.2d 149— Faison T.
Faison, Civ.App., 31 S.W.2d 828,
error dismissed — Community Nat-
ural <3a« C*. T. Northern Texas
Utilities Co., Civ.App., 13 -S.W.2d
194, error dismissed — Smith v.
Miller, Civ.App., 300 fi.W. 95"3—
Creager T. Beamer Syndicate, Civ.
App., 274 S.W. 323.
Utah.— Voyles v. Straka, 292 P. 913,
77 Utah 171.
Wis.—In re Kehl's Estate, 254 N.W.
639, 215 Wis> 353*
Wyo. — Corpus Juris cited in Urbach
v. Urbach, 73 P.2d 953. 963, 62
Wyo. 207, 113 A.L.R. 889.
33 C.J. p 1144 note 82—42 C.J. P
142 note B3— 47 C.J. P 430 note 69
— 51 C.J. p 270 note 33.
Conformity of default Judgment to
pleadings and proof see infra §
214.
Relief m equity as limited by prayer
for relief' see Equity § 607.
"It may be that in some cases a
court is warranted in decreeing to
litigants .rights not specifically ask-
ed for in the prayer, but we know
of no rule which requires a trial
court to render a judgment in favor
of a litigant who does not plainly
set out in some portion of his plead-
ing the relief which he desires and
to which he deems himself entitled
under the law.** — City of Floydada
v. Gilltem, Tex.Civ.App., Ill S.W.2d
761, 763.
23. Ark. — Bentonville v. Browne,
158 S.W. 161, 108 Ark. 306.
33 C.J. p 1145 note 83.
Incidental relief in foreclosure suit
(1) It is within the power of the
court in a foreclosure suit to give
relief as to incidental matters not
specified in the prayer, where the
mortgage stipulates for such relief.
— First Nat. Bank v. Heachem, Tenn.
Ch., 36 S.W. 724—42 C.J. p 143 note 54.
(2) Such relief may also be given
where complainant was excusably
ignorant as to his right thereto. —
Clark v. Mackin, 95 N.Y. 3-46—42 C
J. p 143 note 55.
24. La.— New Orleans Silica Brick
Co. v. John Thatcher & Son, 107
So. 236, 160 La. 392.
Tex, — Railroad Commission of Texas
v. Royal Petroleum Corporation,
Civ.App., 93 S.W,2d 761, error dis-
missed-^Smith v. Jaggers, Civ.
App., 16 S.W.2d 969, error dis-
missed.
33 C.J. p 1148 note 2.
25. Ark. — Morgan v. Scott-Mayer
Commission Co., 48 S.W.2d 838,
185 Ark. 637.
Cal. — Holmes v. Anderson, 265 .0?.
1010, 90 CaLApp. 276.
Colo.— Snell v. Public Utilities Com-
mission, 114 P.2d 563, 108 Colo. 162
— >Speyer v. School Dist. No. 1,
City and County of Denver, 261 P.
859, 82 Colo. 534 — Pomponio v.
Larsen, 251 P. 534, 80 Colo. 318.
Ga. — Anderson v. Fulton County
Home Builders, 92 S.E. 934, 147
Ga, 104,
112
Idaho.— Schlieff v. Bistline, 15 P.2d
726, 52 Idaho 353.
Ill.-^Pure Oil Co. v. -Byrnes, 57 N.E.
2d 356, 388 111. 26— Swofford v.
Swofford, 63 N.B.2d 615, 527 111.
App. 25.
Ind.— Rooker v. Leary, 149 N.B. 358,
84 Ind. App. 77 — Montgomery v.
Montgomery, 140 N.B. 917, 81 Ind.
App. 1.
Mo. — Homa-n v. Employers Reinsur-
ance Corporation, 136 S.W.2d 289,
345 Mo. 650, 127 A.L.R. 163— Ben-
trup v. Johnson, 14 S.W.2d 537, 223
Mo.App. 299.
Mont. — Malvaney v. Yager, 64 P.2d
135, 101 Mont. 331.
N.Y. — In re Feuer Transp., 65 N.B.
2d 178, 295 N.Y. 87, reargument
denied Feuer Transp. v. Local Un-
ion No. 445 of International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, 66 N.E.2d
590, 295 N.Y. 821, motion denied
66 N.B.2d 593, 295 N.Y. 825—
Brown Packing Co. v. Lewis, 58
N.Y.S.2d 443, 185 Misc. 445.
Okl.— Reynolds v. Wall, 72 P.2d 505,
181 Okl. 110, 113 A.L.R. 417—
Owens v. OPurdy, 217' P. 425, 90
Okl. 256.
Tenn. — Central Bank & Trust Co. v.
Conn. 264 S.W. 641, 150 Tenn. 375.
Utah. — Bolognese v. Anderson, 90
P.2d 275, 97 Utah 136— Jeffries v.
Third Judicial Dist. Court of Salt
Lake County, 63 P.2d 242, 90 Utah
525.
Prayer not determinative of right to
recover
The right to recover depends, not
on the prayer, but on the scope of
the pleadings, and the issues made,
or which might have been made,
under them. — Paulsen v. Western
Electric Co., 171 P. 38. 67 Okl. 809.
General law as to framing of judg-
ment
Where the general law prescribes
the manner of framing a judgment
and carrying it into execution, the
court ' may follow that manner,
whether or not expressly prayed for.
—Ex parte Weiler, 289 P. 645, 106
Cal.App. 485.
20. Ark. — Albersen v. Klanke, 6 6.
W.2d 292, 177 Ark. 288.
Cal. — O'Melia v. A<3kins, App., 166 P.
2d 298— Erskine v. Upham, 132 P.
2d 210, 56 Cal.App.2d 235—80^
nicksen v. So'nnicksen, 113 OP.2d
495, 45 Cal.Appv2d 46 — Zimmer v.
Gorehiik, 109 P.2d 34, 42 Cal.App.
2d 440 — Lorraine v. Lorraine, 48
P.2d 48, 8 Cal.App.2d 687— Masero
t9 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 49
•elief, or for relief which cannot be granted, the
;ourt may grant other and appropriate relief.27
\. party is not deprived of all right to relief merely
>ecause he has sought more than he is entitled to,
ind judgment for less relief than demanded may
>e given when sustained by the pleadings- and
>roof.28
A judgment which grants relief of a character
lot sought is not for that reason void ;29 at most it
s erroneous.30
v. Bessolo, 262 P. 61, 87 CaLApp.
262.
3olo. — Bncll r. Public Utilities Com-
mission, 114 P.2d 563, 108 Colo.
162.
11. — Yakich v. Smietanka, 63 N.E.2d
718, 392 111. 53.
Can. — Eberhardt Lumber Co. v. I*e-
cuyer, 110 P.2d 757, 153 Kan. 386
— Shelley v. Sentinel Life Ins. Co.,
69 iP.2d 737, 146 Kan. 227.
JLo. — Merz v. Tower Grove Bank &
Trust Co,, 130 S;W.2d 611, 344 Mo.
1150 — Jones v. Campbell, App., 189
S.W.2d 124.
tfont. — Malvaney v. Yager, 5'4 P.2d
135, 101 Mont. 331— Outlook Farm-
ers' Elevator Co. v. American
Surety Co. of New York, 223 P.
905. 70 Mont. 8.
*.Y.— Hells tern v. Hellstern, 18 N.
E.2d 296, 279 N.Y. 327— New
Chester Theatre Corporation v.
Bischoff, 205 N.Y.S. 641. 210 App.
Div. 125— Allen v. Mattison, 14 N.
Y.S.2d 711.
*.C.— Lockman v. Lockman, 16 S.E.
2d 670, 220 N.C. 95— Dry v. Board
of Drainage Com'rs of Gabarrus
County, Drainage Dist No. 6, 11
S.E.2d 143, 218 N.C. 356— Troacler
v. Bevill, 3 S.E.2d 8, 215 N.C. 640
—Virginia Trust Co. v. Webb, 173
S.E. 598, 206 NjC. 247.
3kl.WTucker v. Porter, 72 R2d 388,
181 Okl. 30 — Harmon v. Hines, 16
P.2d 94, 160 Okl. 120— Page v. Ok-
lahoma City, 263 OP. 448, 12J9 Okl.
28— Rose v. Firat Nat Bank, 219
P. 715, 93 Okl. 120.
3.C.— Palmetto Compress & Ware-
house Co. v. Citizens & Southern
Nat. Bank, 20 S.E.2d 232, 200 S.C.
20 — Youmans v. Youmans, 121 SJB3.
674, 128 S.C. 31.
Tex. — Honaker v. Guffey Petroleum
Co., 294 S.W. 259.
{3 C.J. p 1149 note 5, p 1150 note 7.
Amendments to prayer
(1) In a proper case the court will
illow amendments to be made to
the prayer in order to justify a
judgment affording appropriate re-
lief.—Burd v. Downing, 213 P. 287,
30 Cal.App. 493.
(2)( It has also been held, how-
ever, that an amendment to the
prayer of the petition is not a pre-
requisite to such relief. — Snehoda v.
49 C.J.S.-8
In contested cases, or cases in which an answer
has been filed the relief which may be granted is
not limited to that demanded in the complaint or
specifically prayed for, particularly under statutes
in effect so providing;31 the court may grant any
relief which is consistent with the case made by the
pleadings and proofs, and embraced within the is-
sues.32 The effect of a statute providing that,
where defendant appears and answers, plaintiff shall
First Nat Bank in Wichita, 224 P.
91*4, 115 Kan. 836.
27. Ariz. — -Keystone Copper Min. Co.
v. Miller, 164 P.2d 603.
Cal. — Bank of America Nat. Trust
& Savings Ass'n v. Gillett, 97 P.2d
875, 36 Cal.App.2d 453— Neblett v.
Neblett, 66 P.2d 969, 13 Cal.App.
2d 304.
Colo.— Pope v. Parker, 271 P. 1118,
84 Colo. 535.
La. — Prejean v. East Baton Rouge
Parish Democratic Executive Com-
mittee, 19 So.2d 376, 206 La. 658.
Mo. — Rains v. Moulder, 90 S.W.2d
81, 338 Mo. 275.
N.T.— Lonsdale v. Spever, 291 N.Y.
$. 495, 249 App.Dlv. 133— Seedman
v. Benenson Realty Co., 60 N.Y.S.
2d 341, 185 Misc. 769— Brown
Packing Co. v. Lewis, 58 N.Y.S.2d
443, 185 Misc. 445.
Erroneous prayer for eq.uita'ble relief
If complaint states facts showing
cause of action at law, court will
disregard prayer for equitable relief
and give plaintiff appropriate reme-
dy in law, — Welsh v. Markham, 210
N.W. 70-6, 191. Wis. 310.
Compliance with statutory require-
ments
Where the allegations of a com-
plaint under statute are sufficient
to satisfy the statutory require-
ments, it is immaterial that the
prayer for relief is inappropriate. —
Hamilton v. Hamilton, 139 N.Y.-S.
1095, 78 Misc. 557.
28. Ind.— State ex rel. Mavity v.
Tyndall, 66 N.R2d 755.
Ky. — Cooper v. McWilliams & Rob-
inson, 298 S.W. 961, 221 Ky. 320.
La. — Martinez v. Orleans Parish
School Board, 98 So. 860, 155 La.
116— Harries v. Courcier, 119 So.
90S, 16 La.App. 22.
N.Y.— Vickers v. Tickers, 282 N.Y.S.
422, 156 Misc. 724.
-Wash.— Washington Pulp & Paper
Corporation v. Robinson, 6 P.2d
e32, 166 Wash. 210.
Wyo.~ Corpus Juris quoted in Ur-
bach v. Urbach, 73 P.2d 953, 962,
52 Wyo. 207, 113 A.L.R. 889.
33 C.J. p 1145 note 84.
interest than entire ownership
Appropriate pleading of entire
ownership in property sued for will
authorize recovery of a less interest,
113
where warranted by the proof. — Gay
v. Jackman, TexjCom.App., 254 S.W.
927—51 C.J. p 270 note 38 [a],
29. Cal. — Luekey v. Superior Court
in and for Los Angeles County,
287 P. 450, 209 Cal. 360.
Ky, — Middleton v. Graves, 17 S.W.24
741, 229 Ky. 640.
33 C.J. p 1148 note 2 [b].
However, it has also been held
that a judgment in an action to de-
termine adverse claims to vacant
and unoccupied lands, awarding re-
lief -beyond the scope of the com-
plaint, is not a mere irregularity,,
but extrajudicial and void. — Hurr v.
Davis, 193 N.W. 94-3, 155 Minn. 456.
rehearing denied 194 N.W. 379, 155
Minn. 456, certiorari denied 44 S.Ct.
36, 263 U.S. 709, 68 L.Ed. 518, and
error dismissed 45 S.Ct. 227, 267 U.S.
572, 69 L.Ed. 794.
Unsupported portion
Where the pleadings do not war-
rant a decree or part of a decree en-
tered, and the decree or such part
of it is clearly and unmistakably
beyond the scope of the pleadings,
then the decree or such part of it is
void and not merely erroneous.—
Simmons v. Yoho, 115 S.E. 851, 92
W.Va. 703.
30. Ky.— (Middleton v. Graves, 17 S,
W.2d 7-41, 229 Ky. 640.
31. Cal. — Estrin v. Superior Court
in and for Sacramento County, 96
iP.2d 340, 14 Cal.Sd 670— Pedro v.
Scares, 64 P.2d 776, 18 Cal.App.23
600.
La.— Clesi v. National Life & Acci-
dent Ins. Co., App., 193 So. 89 7t
affirmed 197 So. 413, 195 La. 736..
Minn. — La Rue Iron Mining Co. v.
Village of Nashwauk, 222 N.W..
527, 176 Minn. 117.
Tex. — Duncan v. Green, Civ.App.t.
113 S.W.2d 656, error dismissed.
33 C.J. p 1146 notes 89, 92^5} C.J.,
p 270 note 35.
32. Cal. — Estrin v. (Superior Court,
in and for Sacramento County, 96;
P.2d 540, 14 Cal.2d 670 — Zumwalt
v. Hargrave, App., 162 P.2d 957 —
Davis v. -Stewart, 127 P.2d 1014,.
53 CaLApp.2d. 439— York v. Beck..
App., 118 P.2d 316— Martin v. Pa-
cific Southwest Royalties, 106 P.
2d 44-3, 41 Cal.App.2d 161 — Allen
v. California Mut. Building &-
§ 49
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S
not be confined to the relief demanded is merely to
relieve plaintiff from any technical objection that
he has not prayed for the precise relief to which, on
the trial, he may seem entitled; and the relief to be
granted must still conform to, and be consistent
with, the case made by the pleadings and proof.83
A demurrer has been held not an answer within the
meaning of such a statute;34 but there is also au-
thority to the contrary.35 Defendant's election to
stand on the sufficiency of his answer, after a de-
murrer thereto has been sustained, is not equiva-
lent to withdrawal of the answer, with respect to
whether or not relief may be granted exceeding
that demanded by the complaint**
Prayer for general relief. Where «a prayer for
general relief is added to the demand of specific
relief, the court is not limited to the specific de-
mand, but may grant, particularly under code prac-
tice, such other appropriate relief as may be con-
sistent with the allegations and proofs and neces-
sary to adjust fully the equities of the case,37 at
Loan Ass'n, 104 P.2d 851, 40 Cal.
App.2d 374 — Pedro v. Scares, 64 P.
2d 776, 18 Cal.App.2d 600— Sam-
uels v. Singer, 86 P.2d 1098, 1 Cal.
App.2d 545, amended and rehear-
ing denied 37 P.2d 1050, 1 Cal.App.
2d 545— «intzel v. Wagner, 6 P.2d
29*, 119 CaLApp. 335— Murdock v.
Fisher Finance Corporation, 251 P.
319, 7-9 CaLApp. 787-^Takovich v.
Romer, 240 P. 39, 74 CaLApp. 333.
Idaho.— Schlieff v. BIstline, 15 P.2d
726, 52 Idaho 35*3.
3STev.— Buaas v. Buaas, 147 P.2d 495,
62 Nev. 232 — Keyes v. Nevada Gas
Co., 38 P.2d 661, 55 Nev. 431.
N.C. — Simms v. Sampson, 20 S.B.2d
55*. 221 N.C. «79.
N.D. — Jacobson v. Mutual Ben.
Health & Accident Ass'n, 296 N.W,
545, 70 N.D. 566.
Tex. — Hubb Diggs Co. v. Fort Worth
State Bank, 298 8.W. 419, 117 Tex
107.
33 C.J. p 1146 note 91, p 1150 note 6
—51 C.J. p 270 note 38.
"Issue"
Word "issue," as used in statute
providing that court may grant
plaintiff any relief embraced within
issue, is broader than complaint,
where answer enlarges the same by
introducing new matter. — 'McAllister
v. Union Indemnity Co., 42 P.2d 305,
2 Cal.2d 457.
Granting divorce on complaint ask-
ing separation
Even though husband's complaint
asked only for separation and gen-
eral relief, and no statute permits
him to bring separation action, yet,
where it alleged acts of cruelty en-
titling him to divorce, it was held
sufficient for that purpose, on de-
fendant answering. — Slettebak v.
Slettebak, 201 N.W. 716, 48 S.D. 51.
33. Ky.— Perkins v. Hardwick, 121
S.W.24 20, 275 Ky. 182.
33 C.J. p 1146 note 90.
34. Nev.— Mariner v. Milisch, 200 P.
478, 45 Nev. 193.
33 C.J. p 1148 note 96.
35. N.T.— Pearce v. Knapp, 127 N.Y.
S. 1100, 71 Misc. 324.
Wis.— Tiles v. Green, 64 N.W. 856,
91 Wis. 217.
3$. Wis. — Numbers v. Union Mortg.
Loan Co.. 247 N.W. 442, 211 Wis.
30.
37. Ark.— Realty Inv. Co. v. Hig-
gins, 91 S.W.2d 1030, 192 Ark. 423
— Morgan v. Scott-Mayer Commis-
sion Co., 48 S.W.2d 838, 185 Ark.
637.
Cal. — Martin v. Hall, 26 P.2d 288, 219
Cal. 334— Knox v. Wolfe, App., 167
P.2d 3— Rinker v. McKinley, 149 P.
2d 859, 65 Cal.App.2d 109— Brskine
v. Upham, 132 P.2d 219, 56 Cal.
App.2d 235 — Sonnicksen v. Son-
nicksen, 113 P.2d 495, 45 Cal.App.
2d 46.
Fla. — Semple v. -Semple, 105 So. 134,
90 Fla. 7.
Ga. — Taylor v. Cureton, 25 S.E.2d
815, 196 Ga. 28— Matson v. Crowe,
19 <S.E.2d 288, 195 Ga. 578— Bleck-
ley v. Bleckley, 5 S.R2d 206, 189
Ga. 47 — Bowers v. Dolen, 1 S.E.2d
734, 187 Ga, 653-^Monroe v. Dia-
mond Match Co., 185 S.E. 814, 182
Ga. 438 — Sanders v. Jones, 142 S.
E. 680, 166 Ga. 18-6— Broderick v.
Reid, 1«9 S.B. 18, 164 Ga. 474.
Idaho. — Barker v. McKellar, 296 P.
196, 50 Idaho 226.
111.— Updike v. Smith, 39 N.B.2d 325,
378 111. 600 — Browning v. Brown-
ing, 46 N.E.2d 101, 317 IlLApp.
372, transferred, see 39 N.E.2d
375, 379 HI. 29— Kaifer v. Kaifer,
3 N.E.2d 886, 286 IlLApp. 433.
Iowa. — Wagner v. Northern Securi-
ties Co., 284 N.W. 461, 226 Iowa
568.
Kan.— Katschor v. Ley, 113 P.2d 127,
153 Kan. 569.
Ky.—Bevins v. Ford, 194 «S.W.2d 657,
302 Ky. 346— National Savings &
Building Ass'n v. Hutchinson, 144
S.W.2d 1029, 284 Ky. 408— Dotson
v. Peoples Bank, 27 iS.W.2d 673,
234 Ky. 138.
La. — Abadie v. Gluck's Restaurant
Corporation, 121 So. 757, 168 La.
241 — Lyons Planning Mills v.
Guillot, App., 146 So. 700— Harris
v. Henderson Land, Timber & In-
vestment Co., 119 So. 893, 9 La.
App. 279. — Buckley v. Lindsey Mer-
cantile Co., 5 La. App. 467 — De
Bellevue v. Couvillion, 3 La.App.
568 — Levy v. Ebeyer & Winteler,
3 La.App. 500.
Mass.— J. Abrams & Co. v. Clark, 11 I
N.EL2d 449, 298 Mass. 542— Har-l
114
vey v. Crooker, 166 N.E. 828, 267
Mass. 279.
Mich. — People's Mortg. Corporation
v. Wilton, 208 N.W. 60, 234 Mich.
252.
Mo. — Homan v. Employers Reinsur-
ance Corporation, 136 S.W.Sd 289,
•345 Mo. 650, 127 A.L.R. 163— Rains
v. Moulder, 90 S.W.2d 81, 338 Mo.
275 — State Bank of Willow
Springs v. Lillibridge, 293 S.W.
116, 316 Mo. 968— Breit v. Bow-
land, App., 127 S.W.2d 71 — Cun-
ningham v. Kinnerk, 74 S.W.2d
1107, 2-30 Mo.App. 749— Kreger
Glass Co. v. Kreger, App., 49 S.W.
2d 260.
Mont. — Torelle. v. Templeman, 21 P.
2d 60, 94 Mont. 149.
Neb. — Van Steenberg v. Nelson, 22
N.W.2d 414 — Johnson v. Radio
station W O W, 14 N.W.2d 666,
144 Neb. 406, reversed on other
grounds Radio Station WOW
v. Johnson, 65 SjCt 1475, 326 tT.S.
120, 89 L.Ed. 2092, mandate con-
formed to 19 N.W.2d £53, -motion
denied 66 S.Ct. 11— School Dist.
No. 70, Red Willow County, v.
Wood, 13 N.W.2d 153, 144 Neb. 241
— Copass v. Wilborn, 296 N.W. 565,
1-39 Neb. 124— Hilton v. Clements,
291 N.W. 483, 137 Neb. 791, 138
Neb. 143 — Burnham v. Bennison,
236 N.W. 745, 121 Neb. 291.
OkL— Tucker v. Porter, 72 OP.2d 388,
181 OkL 30— Brown v. Privette,
234 P. 577, 109 Okl. 1— Owens v.
Purdy, 217 P. 425, 90 Okl. 256.
Or.— McCredie v. McCredie, 294 P.
361, 134 Or. 517 — Kerschner v.
Smith, 256 P. 195, 121 Or. 469 —
Wm. H. Taylor Finance Corpora-
tion v. Oregon Logging & Timber
Co., 241 P. 388, 116 Or. 440.
Tex. — Starr v. Ferguson, 166 S.W.2d
1-30, 140 Tex. 80 — George v. Wil-
liamson, Com. App., 23 S.W.2d 675
— 'Morris v. Biggs & Co., Civ.App.,
165 S.W.2d 915, error dismissed — .
Railroad Commission of Texas v.
Royal Petroleum Corporation, Civ.
App., 93 S.W.2d 761, error dismiss-
ed— Great Southern Life Ins. Co.
v. Williams, Civ.App., 77 S.W.2d
900— Blair v. Bird, Civ.App., 20
' S."V^.2d 8"43 — Sabens v. Cochrum,
Civ.App., 292 S.W. 281— Hinn v.
Forbes, Civ.App., 264 S.W. 190—
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 49
least where a defense has been made.88 A general
prayer for relief is not, however, a coverall,3^ and
even under such a prayer the court cannot grant re-
lief inconsistent with, or entirely different from,
that which is specifically prayed for,40 or which is
beyond or inconsistent with the allegations of the
pleadings or the facts proved.41
Materiality of variance. A material variance be-
tween the relief sought and that awarded has been
held fatal to the judgment;42 but it is otherwise
where the variance is immaterial and so slight that
Mima v. Hunken, Civ.App.. 262
S.W. 930, error dismissed Nation-
al Compress Co. v. Hamlin, 269
S.W. 1024, 114 Tex. 375— Coward
v. Booth, Civ.App., 251 S.W. 650,
reversed on other grounds Booth
v. Coward, Com.App.t 265 S.W.
1026.
Utah.— Walker v. Singleton, 225 P.
81, 63 Utah 283.
W.Va. — Bowman v. Hartford Fire
Ins. Co., 169 S.E. 443, 113 W.Va,
784.
33 C.J. p 1148 note 3—42 C.J. p 143
note 57—47 C.J. p 430 note 71—
51 C.J. p 271 notes 42, 43.
Belief allowable in equity under
prayer for general relief see Equi-
ty § 607 b.
Avoidance of circuit? of action
Under prayer for general relief,
court may render such judgment as
would be given in new suit to avoid
circuity of action. — Harsh v. Avegno,
3 La.App. 294.
Judgment for possession in eject-
ment action
There may be a judgment for pos-
session in an ejectment action al-
though there is no specific prayer
therefor, where the complaint con-
tains proper averments, a general
prayer for relief, and there is a
finding for possession. — Evans v.
Schafer, 21 N.E. 448, 119 Ind. 49.
Cancellation of instruments and res-
titution of money paid
In suit by vendee for rescission
of a contract of purchase of land, a
prayer for general relief was held
to justify decree of canceling con-
tract and notes and ordering restitu-
tion of the money paid by purchas-
er on the property. — Loughry v.
Cook, Tex.Civ.App., 2fr3 S.W. 333.
88. Ky. — Perkins v. Hardwick, 121
S.W.2d 20, 275 Ky. 182— Hickman
County Board of Drainage Com'rs
v. Union Stock Land Bank, 8*3 S.
W.2d 511, 259 Ky. 823— Young v.
Barnett, 80 S.W.2d 16, 258 £y. 330
— Lincoln Bank & Trust Co. v. Ar-
nold, 75 S.W.2d 751, 256 Ky. 80-r-
Farley v. Gibson, 30 S.W.2d 876,
235 Ky, 164.
La. — Muse v. Sharp, App., 155 So.
300.
Mo. — Southwest Pump & Machinery
Co. v. Forslund, 29 S.W.2d 165,
225 Mo.App. 262.
39. Ky. — Oawood v. Cawood's
Adm'x, 147 S.W.2d 88, 285 Ky. 201.
40. U.S. — In re Wesley Corporation,
D.C.Ky., 18 FJSupp. 347. , \
Ga.— Brockett v. Maxwell, 35 S.E.2d
906 — Christopher v. Whitmire, 34
S.E.2d 100, 199 Ga. 280— Taylor
v. Cureton, 25 S.R2d 815, 196
Ga. 28.
Iowa.— Davis v. Davis, 229 N.W. 855,
209 Iowa 1186;
Ky.-JCawood v. Cawood's Adm'x,
147 S.W.2d 88, 285 Ky. 201— Jame-
son v. Jameson, 133 S.W.2d 923,
280 Ky. 554.
La, — Stubbs v. Imperial Oil & Gas
Products Co., 114 So. 595, 164 La.
. 689.
Or.— Wm. H. Taylor Finance Corpo-
ration v. Oregon Logging & Tim-
ber Co., 241 OP. 388, 116 Or. 4'40.
Tex. — Jennings v. Texas Farm
Mortg. Co., 80 S.W.2d 9-31, 124 Tex.
593— San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co.
v. Collins, Com.App., 61 S.W.2d 84
— Ellzey v. Allen, Civ.App., 172
S.W.2d 70*3, error dismissed — Tabb
v. City of Mt. Pleasant, Civ.App..
12 S.W.2d 831— Vanlandingham v.
Terry, Civ. App., 293 S.Wt 252.
Va.— Winston v. Winston, 130 S.B.
784, 144 Va. 848.
33 C.J. p 1149 note 4.
Specific performance in suit for re-
scission
A purchaser of land whose suit
for rescission and recovery of pur-
chase price was barred was not en-
titled to specific performance under
his prayer for general relief, since
right to specific performance was
inconsistent with right to rescind
and might depend on wholly differ-
ent facts.— Wall v. Zynda, 278 N.W.
66, 283 Mich. 260, 114 A.L.H. 1521.
41. U.S. — In re Wesley Corporation,
DJC.Ky., 18 F.Supp. 347.
Cal. — -Morrow v. Morrow, 105 P.2d
129, 40 Cal.App.2d 474— Petition
of Furness, 218 P. 61, 62 CaLApp.
753.
Ga. — Comstock v. Tarbush, 37 S.B.
2d 148, transferred see, APP-. 37
S.E.2d -925— Christopher v. Whit-
mire, 34 S.B.2d 100, 199 Ga. 280—
Taylor v. Cureton, 25 S.B.2d 815,
196 Ga. 28.
Ind. — Denney v. Peters, 10 N.B.2d
754, 104 Ind.App. 504.
Iowa. — Manassa v. Garland, 206 N.
W. 38, 200 Iowa 1129.
Ky.—Cawood v. Cawood's Adm'x, 147
S.W.2d 88, 285 Ky. 201— Jameson
v. Jameson, 133 S.W.2d 923, 280
Ky. 554.
Mass. — Harbour v. Sampson, 165 K.
B. 14, 266 Mass. 180.
Minn. — Briggs v. Kennedy Mayon-
115
naise Products, 297 N.W. 342, 209
Minn. 312.
Miss. — Kennington-Saenger Theatres
v. State ex rel. Dist. Atty., 18 So.
2d 483, 196 Miss. 841, 153 A.L.H.
883.
Mo.— Barlow v. Scott, 85 S.W.2d
504— Fielder v. Fielder, App., 6 S.
W.2d 968.
Nev.— Buaas v. Buaas, 147 P.2d 495,
62 Nev. 232.
Or. — Wm. H. Taylor Finance Corpo-
ration v. Oregon Logging & Tim-
ber Co., 241 P. 388, 116 Or. 440.
Tenn.— Merritt v. Merritt, 10 Tenn.
App. 369.
Tex. — Starr v. Ferguson, 166 S.W.2d
130, 140 Tex. 80— Verschoyle v.
Holifield, 123 S.W.Sd 878, 132 Tex.
516 — Adleson v. B. F. Dittmar Co.,
80 S.W.2d 939, 124 Tex. 564— Jen-
nings v. Texas Farm Mortg. Co.,
80 S.W.2d 9/31, 124 Tex. 593— Ar-
rington v. McDaniel, 14 S.W.2d
1009, questions answered 25 S.W.
2d 295, 119 Tex. 148.
51 C.J. p 271 note 41.
'specific performance in suit to quiet
title
Prayer for general relief in peti-
tion to quiet title containing no al-
legation for affirmative equitable re-
lief does not authorize judgment for
specific performance. — Congregation
B'Nai Abraham v. Arky, 20 S.W.2d
899, 323 Mo. 776.
Personal Judgment in stockholder's
representative action
"General relief" in a representa-
tive action by a stockholder does not
comprehend a personal judgment In
favor of stockholder against corpo-
ration based on debt or other liabil-
ity either as part of his cause of
action against corporation entitling
him to sue as its representative or
the corporation's cause of action
against the wrongdoer. — Briggs v.
Kennedy Mayonnaise Products/ 297
N.W. 342, 209 Minn. 312.
Foreclosure of lien in tort action
Under prayer for general relief in
action based on alleged tort and
wherein relief sought was by way
of damages, plaintiff was held not
entitled to foreclosure of lien, where
there was no alternative prayer for
foreclosure. — McKee v* Mathias, Tex.
Civ.App., 83 S.W.2d 744, error dis-
missed.
42. HL— Condit v. 'Stevenson, 13 111.
App. 417. .
§ 49
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
plaintiff would be permitted to amend at any time
without costs.48
Alternative relief. A judgment for alternative
relief is sometimes proper where demanded,44 but it
is not proper if not asked for in the pleadings.45
Where relief on two counts is sought in the alterna-
tive, it has been held that judgment should not be
rendered on both counts.4*
b. Affirmative Belief to Defendant
In general, an answer which has demanded no af-
firmative relief, such as an answer setting up merely a
defense, will not support a judgment granting affirma-
tive relief to the defendant. On proper pleadings and
proof, however, a defendant may have affirmative re*
lief in accordance with that demanded by him.
It is a general rule that where the answer prays
for no affirmative relief, defendant can have none,
and a judgment granting affirmative relief in such
cases is erroneous because not in conformity with
the issues raised by the pleadings.4* An answer
which sets up merely a defense will not support a
judgment giving defendant affirmative relief ;4$ but
the fact that pleadings are defensive in their nature
does not mean that they may not also be used as a
basis for affirmative relief, where the facts pleaded
are sufficient to entitle the pleader to affirmative re-
lief, and where there is a prayer for such relief.49
An affirmative judgment for defendant is proper
where it is justified by the pleadings and proof,50
particularly under codes and practice acts provid-
43. Mass. — Hargrave v. American
Steel & Wire Co., 106 N.E. 637, 219
Mass. 6.
33 C.J. p 1145 note 87.
44. Okl. — Steiner v. TTrquart, 225
P. 695, 99 Okl. 60.
45. Tex. — Jennings v. Texas Farm
Mortg. Co., 80 S.W.2d 931, 124
Tex, 593.
46. Mo. — Schroll v. Noe, App., 297
S.W. 99*9, Quashal of opinion de-
nied State ex rel. Noe v. Cox, 19
S.W.2d 695, 323 Mo. 520.
Ohio. — Priller v. Auglaize Hotel Co.,
App., 36 N.E.2d 1019. ,
47. Conn. — Switzer v, Turansky, 124
A. 720, 101 Conn. 60.
Ga, — Greenwood v. Greenwood, 160
S.E. 392, 173 Ga. 348.
Iowa. — Liscomb IS tat e Sav. Bank v.
Leise, 207 N.W. 330, 201 Iowa 353.
Kan. — Burgner-Bowman Lumber Co.
v. McCord-Kistler Mercantile Co.,
216 P. 815, 114 Kan. 10, 35 A-L.R.
242.
gy.— Jacobs T, Wells, 111 S.W.2d
5?4, 271 Ky. 82 — Dunn v. Cham-
pion, 99 S.W.2d 813, 266 Ky. 757.
La. — David v. Guilbeau, App., 180 So.
850— Stafford v. Tolmas Realty
Co., App., 146 So. 61, transferred,
see 139 So. 766, 174 La. 83— Hal-
pern v. Cornelison, 133 So. 898,
16 La.App. 344.
Mich.— McCaslin v. Schouten, 292 N.
W. 696, 294 Mich. 180— Reich Y.
Schmidt, 218 N.W. 671, 242 Mich.
130.
Miss. — Hayes v. National Surety Co.,
153 So. 515, 169 Miss. 676.
Mo.— Friedel v. Bailey, 44 S.W.2d
9, '32-9 Mo. '22— «3tate ex rel. Dura-
flor Products Co. v. Pearcy, 29 S.
W.2d 83, 32.5 Mo. 835— Chilton v.
Chilton, App., 297 S.W. 457.
N.T. — Studebaker .Corporation of
America v. Silverberg, 199 N.Y.S.
190.
Okl. — Reinauer v. Davis, 130 P.2d
91, 191 Okl. 366.
Pa. — The Maccabees v. Cappas, 43 A.
2d 538, 157 Pa.Super. 481.
R.I.— Si-ravo v. Whitman, 151 A. 893,
51 R.L 102.
Tex. — Smith v. Blancas, Civ.App.,
87 S.W.2d 781, error refused—
Gaulden v. Antone, Civ.App., 279
iS.W. 560 — Chapman v. Sunshine
Oil Corporation, Civ.App., 256 S.
W. 327— Moulton v. Deloach, Civ.
App., 253 S.W. 303.
33 C.J. p 1150 notes 8, 9.
Abandonment of cross action
Where cross action was set up in
original , and second amended an-
swer, but not mentioned in subse-
quent amended answers, such cross
action was abandoned, and judgment
in favor of cross defendant on his
cross action was erroneous. — Hink-
ley v. Brewer, Tex.CivJV.pp., 274 S.W.
227.
Overpayments
In an action for the balance due
on the purchase price of property, or
on a contract, defendant cannot re-
cover an overpayment which the
evidence shows he made, where he
has not interposed a counterclaim
or asked for such relief.
Ky. — Runyon v. Runyon, 251 S.W.
173, 199 Ky. 878.
Tex.— Branch v. Smith, Civ.App.. 245
S.W. 799.
Pailure of plaintiff to appear at
the trial does not warrant affirma-
tive relief in favor of defendant
where there is no plea or other de-
fense by defendant in the nature of
a cross action against plaintiff. —
Ellard v. Simpson, 142 S.E. 855, 166
Ga. 278.
33 C.J. p 1150 note 8 [a].
Alternative reconveutional demands
Where particular relief in recon-
vention is demanded by defendant
only in .the event that certain other
relief is decreed, and such other re-
lief is not decreed, the reccmventdon-
al demands of defendant, made in
the alternative, necessarily fall and
drop out of the xjase.— Tyson v. Surf
Oil Co., 196 So. 336, 195 La. 2-48.
4& 111.— Whitaker Paper Co. v.,
116
Galesburg Mail Co., 238 Hl.App.
600.
Ind. — Johnson v. Collins, 1 Blackf.
166.
Tex. — Dean v. Maxwell, Civ.App., 173
S.W.2d 246— Scales r. Lindsay,
Civ.App., 43 S.W.2d 286, error dis-
missed.
Wash. — City Bond & Share v. Kle-
ment, 5 P.2d 523, 165 Wash. 408.
Wis.— Marshall v. Marshall, 284 N.
W. 541, 230 Wis. 504.
33 C.J. p 1151 note 16.
49. Tex. — R. R. Stolley Corpora-
tion of Austin, Tex., v. Quebe-
deaux, Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 266,
error dismissed.
50. Ky. — Wagner v. Swoope, 64 S.
W.2d 395, 246 Ky. 19.
Mo. — Missouri Lumber & Mining Co.
v. Hassell, 298 S.W. 47 — Brown v.
Wilson, App., 131 S.W.2d 848,
quashed on other grounds State
ex rel. Brown v. Hughes, 137 'S.W.
2d 54*4, 345 Mo. 958*.
Mont — Mather v. Musselman, 278
P. 998, 85 Mont. 552.
Okl.— Watts v. Meriwether, 84 P.2d
643, 184 Okl. (32.
S.C.— Little v. Rivers, 185 S.E. 174,
180 S.C. 149.
Tex — Bustamante v. Haynes, Civ.
App., 55 S.W.2d 137, error dis-
missed— Ruby v. Davis, Civ.App.,
277 S.W. 430.
33 C.J. p 1150 note 10.
Accounting-
Defendant may be entitled to an
accounting, notwithstanding the ab-
sence of a demand therefor in his
pleading, where the circumstances
warrant an accounting and defend-
ant has been led to believe through-
out the trial that an accounting
would be had. — Pearson v. Juarez,
248 P. 278, 78 CaLApp. 122.
Damages
(1) In a proper case, damages
may be awarded to defendant al-
though he has not specifically
prayed for such relief.
ArK.— Albersen v. Klanke. 6 S.W.2d
292, 177 Ark. 288.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 50
ing that the judgment may grant to defendant any
affirmative relief to which he may be entitled.51
Ordinarily a judgment granting defendant affirma-
tive relief must be founded on, and be responsive
to, his pleadings, and cannot rest on the pleading
of some other party;52 but a defendant may some-
times have affirmative relief against a codefendant
notwithstanding he has served no pleading enti-
tling him to such relief, where the facts justifying
such relief are set forth in the complaint.53
In general, any affirmative relief to a defendant
should be in conformity with that demanded by
him.54 The prayer for relief, however, does not
necessarily determine the relief to which defendant
is entitled,55 and under some circumstances defend-
ant's failure to ask for affirmative relief will not
preclude final adjudication of the respective rights
of the parties.56
§ 50. Limitation and Conformity to Is-
sues
Judgments ordinarily must be responsive to the Is-
sues presented in the pleadings, and it has frequently
been held that Judgments beyond such issues are void.
The issues may be broadened by consent of the parties,
however, in which case the judgment may embrace the
issues actually litigated.
Judgments must be responsive to the issues pre-
sented in the pleadings or litigated between the par-
ties, and issues not so raised may not be deter-
mined.57 Where there are several good pleas in
Ind. — Yellow Mfg. Acceptance Cor-
poration v. Linsky, 192 N.E. 715,
99 Ind.App. 691.
(2) Defendant's right to recover
damages may be settled in same ac-
tion in which plaintiff asserts right
to damages against defendant, when
both claims Involve determination
of same questions of fact and con-
sideration of same evidence, whether
or not cross action is involved. — Op-
pie v. Bay, 195 N.B. 81, 208 Ind.
450.
Counterclaim as sole defense
Where a counterclaim is the only
defense set up, a judgment for de-
fendant must necessarily allow the
counterclaim. — Wise v. Rosenblatt,
12 N.Y.S. 288, 16 Daly 496.
51. N.Y. — Clegg v. American News-
paper Union, 60 How.Pr. 498, af-
firmed 82 Hun 162, 66 HowJPr. 411.
33 C.J. p 1151 note 15.
52. Tex.— Lee v. British & Ameri-
can- Mortg. Co., 40 S.W. 1041, 16
Tez.Civ.App. 671.
83 C.J. p 1151 note 14.
53. S.C. — Toumans v. Toumans. 121
S.E. 674, 128 S.C. 31.
admission of allegations of com-
plaint
In action by insured on policy con-
taining5 provision that any loss
was payable to mortgagee as his
interest might appear, mortgagee,
who was made party defendant and
filed answer admitting allegations of
complaint, was entitled to propor-
tionate share of insurer's liability
notwithstanding his failure to file
affirmative pleading or prayer for
affirmative relief, since judgment
was bar to any further right mort-
gagee . might assert — Commercial
Union Fire Ins. Co. of New York v.
Wade, 8 N.E.2d 1009, 103 Ind.App.
461.
54. La.— Succession of Markham,
156 So. 225, 180 La. 211.
Tex. — Wilkirson v. Yarbrough, Com.
App.f 257 S.W. 535— Golden West
Oil Co. No. 1 v. Golden Rod Oil
Co. No. 1, Civ.App., 285 S.W. 631,
affirmed Golden Hod Oil Co. No. 1
v. Golden West Oil Co. No. 1, Com.
App., 293 S.W. 167.
Failure to demur to or answer
counterclaim
Plaintiff, although not having filed
any demurrer or answer to counter-
claim, could attack those portions of
final decree granting relief on coun-
terclaim beyond scope of the plead-
ings, since, even if counterclaim
had been taken for confessed, it
would not support a decree beyond
scope of relief sought. — Medlinsky
v. Premium Cut Beef Co., 57 N.B.2d
31, 317 Mass. 25.
Possession granted tinder prayer for
general relief
Defendant's claim of ownership of
house, with prayer for general re-
lief, was held sufficient to sustain
Judgment for its possession. — Olcott
v. Reese, Tex.Civ.App., 291 S.W. 261.
In ejectment, where the court finds
for defendant on all the issues a
decree should be entered as prayed
in the answer. — Chouteau Land &
Lumber Co. v. Chrisman, 72 S.W.
1062, 172 Mo. 610— 19" C.J. P 1210
note 25.
55. Mo. — Eckhardt v. Bock, App.,
159 S.W.2d 395.
T.Y. — Home Life Ins. Co. v. Klein.
25 N.Y.S.2d 215.
56. Wash. — Pratt v. Rhodes, 253 P.
640, 142 Wash. 411, reheard 256
P. 503, 142 Wash. 411.
57. U.S. — Sylvan Beach v. Koch, C.
CJLMo., 140 F.2d 852— Deitrick v.
Standard Surety & Casualty Co.
of New York, C.C.A.Mass., 90 P.
2d 862, affirmed 58 S.Ct. 696, 303
TLS. 471, 82 L.Ed. 962, rehearing
denied 58 S.Ct. 948, 304 U.S. 588,
82 L.Ed, 1548 — Goodrich Transit
Co. v. City of Chicago, C.C.A.I1L,
4 P.2d 636 — Ortlieb v. Baumer, D.
, C.N.Y., 6 F.Supp. 58.
Ala.— Pridgen v. Shadgett, 12 So.2d
395, 244 Ala. 167— Alabama Pow-
117
er Co. v. Owens, 181 So. 283, 236
Ala. 96.
Ariz. — Wall v. Superior Court of
Yavapai County, 89 (P.2d 624, 53
Ariz. 344,
Ark.— Evans v. U. S. Anthracite Coal
Co., 21 !S.W.2d 952, 180 Ark. 578.
CaL — Ayoob v. Ayoob, App., 168
P.2d 462— Hyde v. Hagen, App.,
161 P.2d 242— Berg v. Berg, 132 P.
2d 871. 56 Cal.App.2d 4-95— Wallace
v. Otis, 119 «P.2d 195, 47 Cal.App.2d
814— Dreifus v. Marx, 104 P.2d
10SO, 40 Cal.App.2d 461— Overell v.
Overell. 64 »P.2d 483, 18 Cal.App.2d
•499.
Conn. — Spitz v. Abrams, 20 A.2d 616,
128 Conn. 121 — Hill v. Employers'
Liability Assur. Corporation, 188
A. 277. 122 Conn. 193— O'Hara v.
Hartford Oil Heating Co., 138 A.
458, 106 Conn. 468.
Fla. — Gruber v. Cobey, 12 So.2d 461,
152 Fla. 591— East Coast Stores v.
Cuthbert, 133 So. 863, 101 Pla. 25.
Hawaii. — Corpus Juris cited in Pires
v. Pires,. 29 Hawaii 849, 852.
Idaho.— Nielson v. Garrett, 43 P.2d
380, 55 Idaho 240— Angel v. Mellen,
285 P. 461, 48 Idaho 750.
Ind. — Old First Nat, Bank & Trust
Co. of Fort Wayne v. Snouffier, 192
N.E. 369, 99 Ind.App. 325— Fox v.
Wallace, 151 N.E. 835, 88 Ind.App.
235.
Iowa. — Corpus Juris cited in Ray-
burn v. Maher, 288 N.W. 136, 142,
227 Iowa 274 — Bennett v. Green-
wait, 286 N.W. 722, 226 Iowa 1113
— Wagner v. Northern Securities
Co., 284 N.W. 461, 226 Iowa 568
—Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New
York v. Bank of Plymouth. 237
N.W. 234, 213 Iowa 1058.
Kan.— Penn . Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.
Tittel, 111 P.2d 1116, 153 Kan.
530, rehearing denied 114 P.2d 312,
153 Kan. 7'47 — Leshure v. Zumalt,
100 P.2d 643, 151 Kan. 737— Baird
v. Bureman, 26 P.2d 272, 138 Kan.
381 — Devlin v. City of Pleasanton,
288 P. 595, 130 Kan. 766 — Herring
v. Blue Mound Mining Co., 257 P.
955, 124 Kan. 171.
§ 50
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
bar to the whole cause of action, plaintiff cannot
recover unless he succeeds on all the issues.58 A
judgment should not limit rights of the parties
which are not involved in the action and which may
arise or be interfered with in the future, especially
when uncertainty or confusion would result;^ and
if, under the pleadings, the court is without juris-
diction to determine particular issues, it is without
jurisdiction to reserve such issues for future deter-
mination.60
A judgment on issues not made by the pleadings
is at least erroneous, and may be set aside or re-
versed in a proper proceeding for that purpose ;W
but many cases go further, and hold that judg-
ments based on issues not made by the pleadings or
litigated by the parties are coram non judice and
void, at least in so far as they go beyond such is-
sues,'62 on the theory that a court has no jurisdic-
tion to pass on questions not submitted to it for
Ky.— Newsom v. Damron, 193 S.W.2d
643.
Mich.— -Ward v. Hunter Machinery
Co., 248 N.W. 864. 26i3 Mich. 445.
Mo.— Brandt v. Fanners Bank of
Chariton County, 182 S.W.2d 281,
353 Mo. 25$ — Brown v. Wilson, 155
$.W.2d 176, 348 Mo. 658— In re
Ermeling's Estate, 119 S.W.2d 755,
transferred, see, App., 131 S.W.2d
912 — Unrig v. Hill-Behan Lumber
Co., 110 SS.W.2d 412, 341 Mo. 851—
Rains v. Moulder, 90 S.W.2d 81,
3.38 Mo. 275 — Davis v. Johnson, 58
S.W.2d 746, 332 Mo. 417. trans-
ferred, see, APP., 47 S.W.2d 121—
Friedel v. Bailey, 44 S.W.2d 9,
329 Mo. 22— Congregation B'Nai
Abraham v. Arky, 20 S.W.2d 899,
323 Mo. 776— Ex parte Fowler, 275
S.W 529, 310 Mo. 339— Smith v.
Smith, App., 192 S.W.2d 691, fol-
lowed in 192 S.W.2d 700— Riney v.
Riney, App.. 117 5S.W.2d 698—
Burns v. Ames Realty Co., App., 31
S.W.2d 274— Fielder v. Fielder.
App., 6 S.W.2d 968.
Mont.— Wallace v. Goldberg, 231 OP.
56, 72 Mont. 234.
Neb. — Bowman v. Cobb, 258 N.W.
535, 128 Neb. 28-9.
NT. — Helfhat v. Whitehouse, 179
N.E. 493, 258 N.T. 274— Interna-
tional Photo Recording Machines
v. Microstat Corp., 56 N.T.S.2d
277, 269 App.Div. 485— In re Goe-
bel's Estate, 33 N.Y.S.2d 549, 263
App.Div. 5'1 6— People v. Ribas, 276
N.T.S. 551, 153 Misc. 703.
Ohio.— Licht v. Woertz, 167 NJ3. 614
32 Ohio App. HI.
Or.— Reed v. Hollister, 212 P. 367, 106
Or 407, error dismissed Hollistei
v. Reed, 44 S.Ct. 333, 264 U.S. 599
68 L.Ed. 869.
Pa.— Bradford Gasoline Co. v. Han
ley Co., 173 A. 401, 815 Pa. 441.
S.C.— Parker Peanut Co. v. Felder
34 S.E.2d 488, 207 S.C. 6-3.
S.D.-^Severson v. Bide, 216 N.W
581, 52 S.D. 20 — Deming v. Nelson
210 N.W. 726, 50 S.D. .484.
Tex. — Price v. Seiger, Com.App., 4
S.W.2d 729— De Walt v. Universa
Film Exchanges, Civ. App., 132 S
W.2d 421, error dismissed, Judg-
ment correct — Lewis v. Gamble
Civ.App., -113 S.W.2d 659— Texas
& N. O. R. Co. v. Harris, Civ.App
101 S.W.2d 640, error dismissed—
Owen v. King, Civ-App., 84 S.W.2
743, reversed on other grounds 111
S.W.2d 695, 130 Tex. 614, 114 A.
L.R. 859— Mutual Life Ins. Ass'n
v. Smelley, Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d
1106— American Rio Grande Land
& Irrigation Co. v. Bellman, Civ.
App., 272 S.W. 550.
Va.— Drewry v. Doyle, 20 S.E.2d 54-8,
179 Va. 715.
Wash.— Beadle v. Barta, 123 P.2d
761, 13 Wash.2d 67.
C.J. p 798 note 65—19 C.J. p 1210
note 21 — 33 C.J. p 1151 notes 17,
19—42 C.J. p 1287 note 14.
"There is no principle better es-
tablished than what is not juridical-
y presented cannot be juridically
lecided." — Cooke v. Cooke, 248 P.
13, 104, 67 Utah 371.
Character of lane
Where pleadings do not raise is-
sue, court should not determine
whether or not lane over which
>laintin?s claim means of access is
jublic or private.— ^Lathrop v. Gary,
232 N.W. $97, 202 Wis. 237.
Failure to demur will not justify
judgment on issue not Within plead-
ing.— Farnham v. Schreiber, 149 A.
393, 111 Conn. 38.
Immaterial or unsupported issues
(1) The court may ignore an im-
material issue in rendering judg-
ment—Walton v. Stinson, Tex.Civ
App., 140 S.W.2d 497, error refused.
(2) In rendering judgment the
court may ignore an issue not sup-
ported by evidence. — Goff v. Jane
way, 99 S.W. -602, 30 Ky.L. 705— -28
C.J. p 1056 note 55.
Irrelevant abstract queries
Judgments may not be founded
on issues outside the pleadings in
answer to solicitation on irrelevan
abstract legal queries propounded bs
the parties and argued in thei
briefs.— Raymond v. State Clvi
Service Commission, 32 P.2d 331, 10 *
Colo. 4'58.
Scope of InjTULctive relief
In suit for injunction, growing ou
of labor dispute, as defined in stat
ute, no acts should be enjoined oth
er than those mentioned in the com
plaint. — Boise Street Car Co. v. Vi
Avery, 103 P.2d 1107, 61 Idaho 502.
58. Ala. — Horan v. Gray & Dudle
118
Hardware Co., 48 So. 1029, 159 Ala.
159.
3 C.J. p 1168 note 31.
9. Cal.— Cameron v. Feather River
Forest Homes, 33 P.2d 884, 189
CaLApp. 373.
60. U.S.— Osage Oil & Refining Co,
v. Continental Oil Co., C.C.A.Okt,
34 F.2d 585.
61. Conn.— Shaw v. Spelke, 147 A.
675, 110 Conn. 20'8.
d. — Fisher v. Rosander, 151 N.E.
12, 84 Ind.App. 694.
owa.— Corpus Juris cited in, Ray-
burn v. Maher, 288 N.W. 136, 142.
•227 Iowa 274.
tfeb. — Green v. Axtell Lumber Co.,
-213 N.W. 401, 116 Neb. 603.
Okl. — Bishop v. Franks, 107 P.2d 358,
188 OkL 196 — Holshouser v. Hol-
shouser, 26 P.2d 189, 16-6 Okl. 45.
Tex.— National Union Fire Ins. Co.
of Pittsburgh v. Richards, Civ.
App., 278 -S.W. 488— Williams v.
Borchers, Civ.App., 244 S.W. 1053.
33 C.J. P 1152 note 21.
62. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited In
Osage Oil & Refining Co. v. Con-
tinental Oil Co., C.'C.A.Okl., 34 F.
2d 585, 588.
Cal.— .Wallace v. Otis, 119 P.2d 195,
47 Cal.App.2d 814.
Kan. — Southern Kansas Stage Lines
Co. v. Webb, 41 P:2d 1025, 141
Kan. 476.
Ky.— Covington Trust Co. of Cov-
ington v. Owens, 129 S.W.2d 18-6,
278 Ky. 695— Corpus Juris cited in
Dotson v. People's Bank, 27 S.W.
2d -673, 674, 234 Ky. 138— Lincoln
County Board of Education v.
Board of Trustees of Stanford
Graded Common School Dist, 7
S.W.2d 499, 225 Ky. 21.
Mich. — Hartley v. A. I. Rodd (Lum-
ber Co., 276 N.W. 712, '2-S2 Mich.
652.
Mo.— Riley v. La Font, 174 S.W.2d
S57— Corpus Juris cited in Weath-
erford v. Spiritual Christian Un-
ion Church, 163 S.W.Sd 916, 918—
Brown v. Wilson, 155 -S.W.2d 176,
348 Mo. -658— State ex rel. Fidelity
& Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Al-
len, 85 S.W.2d 455— State ex reL
Gatewood v. Trimble, 62 S.W.2d
756, 833 Mo. 207 — -Button v. Ander-
son, 31 S.W.2d 1026, 3-2* Mo. 304
— Hecfcer v. Bleish, 3 S.W.2d 1008,
$19 Mo. 149— Brandt v. Farmers
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 51
decision.68 If the excessive part of the judgment
cannot be readily separated from that which is with-
in the jurisdiction of the court by virtue of the
pleadings and proof, the entire judgment has been
held to be void.64
Issues broadened by consent. Parties may, if
they so elect, depart from the issues made by the
pleadings, and try other questions relating to the
merits of the controversy by consent or acquies-
cence, and in such cases the judgment is regular
and binding on them,65 the court treating as hav-
ing been made the amendment which ought to have
been made conforming the pleadings to the proof,66
notwithstanding no formal amendment of the plead-
ings has been filed;67 but a mere agreement that
a pleading shall be amended in a certain particular
does not alter the issues until the amendment is
in fact made.68
When an issue is tried which is not within the
pleadings, no duty rests on the court to render a
judgment thereon, and a refusal or failure to do
so is not error.69 Mere stipulations as to the facts
of a case, or the evidence of facts, cannot make a
case broader than it appears by the allegations of
the pleadings, and do not entitle a party to any re-
lief beyond that to which the averments entitle
him.70 Evidence which, although received without
objection, has no legitimate relation to the issues
which form the basis of the action, or is in abso-
lute conflict with the cause of action which is set
out in the complaint, may not be deemed to sup-
port a judgment at variance with the pleadings.71
§ 51. Applications of Rules in General
a. Parties
b. Property affected
c. Quieting title
d. Other applications
a. Parties
(1) In general
(2) Personal or representative capacity
(1) In General
The judgment must follow the pleadings and proof
with respect to the particular plaintiffs and defendants
for and against whom It Is rendered.
Bank of Chariton County, App.,
177 S.W.2d 667, reversed on other
grounds 182 S.W.2d 281, 353 Mo.
259— Dickey v. Dickey, App., 132
S.W.2d 1026 — Schell v. F. E. Ran-
som Coal & Grain Co., App., 79 S.
W.2d 543 — Texas Empire Pipe
Line Co. v. Stewart, App., 35 S.
W.2d 627, reversed on other
grounds 55 S.W.2d 283, 331 Mo.
'525 — Burns v. Ames Realty Co.,
App., '31 S.W.Sd 274 — Owens v. Mc-
Cleary, App., 273 S.W. 145 — Raney
v. Home Ins. fio., 246 S.W. 57, 213
Mo.App. 1.
!Nev. — Schultz v. Mexican Dam &
Ditch Co., 224 P. 804, 47 Nev. 453.
2O. — Trenton Trust Co. v. Gane, 6
A.2d 112, 125 N.J.Bd. 389, affirmed
8 A.2d 708, 126 N.J.EQ. 273— Hacfc-
ensack Trust Co. v. Kelly, 180 A.
621, 118 N.J.Eq. 587, affirmed 187
A. 195, 120 N.J.Ea. 596.
Okl.— Hinkle v. Jones, -66 P.2d 1073,
ISO Okl. 17 — Fuqua v. Watson, 46
P.2d 486, 172 Okl. 624-Oity of
Seminole v. Fields, 43 P.2d 64, 172
Okl. 167 — Electrical Research
Products Y. Haniotis Bros., 39 P.
2d 42, 170 Okl. 150— Winters v.
Birch, 36 P.2d 907, 169 Okl. 237-^
State ex rel. Shull v. Moore, 27 P.
2d 1048, 167 Okl. 28— Henson v.
Oklahoma State Bank, 23 P.2d 709,
165 Okl. 1— Wright v. Farmers'
Nat Bank of Oklahoma City, 243
P. 512, 116 Okl. 74— Hoffman v.
Webb, -240 P. 104, 113 Okl. 150—
Le Clate v. Calls Him, 233 P. 1087,
166 Oia 247.
Or.— Doan v. Dean, 300 P. 1027, 136
Or £94, 8-6 ULL.R. 79.
Tex — Edinburg Irr. Co. v. Ledbetter,
Civ.App., 247 S.W. 335, modified
on other grounds, Com. App., 286
S.W. 185.
Wis. — Nehring v. Niemerowicz, 276
N.W. 325, 226 Wis. 285.
33 C.J. p 1152 note 22—51 C.J. p 270
note 26.
Question within court's general Ju-
risdiction
A judgment which determines ques-
tions not within the court's juris-
diction, because not in issue, is to
that extent void, although the ques-
tion decided may be within the gen-
eral jurisdiction of the court — Hall-
gren v. Williams, Neb., 20 N.W.2d
499—Patersen v. Dethlefs, 2*3 N.W.
155, 139 Neb. 572.
63. Conn. — Corpus Juris cited in
Spitz v. Abrams, 20 A.2d $16. 6i'7,
128 Conn. 121.
33 C.J. p 1153 note 25.
64. OkL— Central Nat Oil Co. v.
Continental Supply Co., 249 P* 347,
119 Okl. 190.
65. CaL — Drullinger v. Hrskine,
App., 163 P.2d 48.
Conn. — Corpus' Juris cited in Spitz
v. Abrams, 20 A.2d 616, 617, 128
Conn. 121.
Ga. — Southern (Lumber Co. v. Ed-
wards, 117 S.E. 252, 30 Ga.App.
223.
Ky. — Lodge v. Williams, 243 S.W.
1011, 195 Ky. 773.
La.— W. J. & C. Sherrouse v. Phenix,
128 So. 536, 14 La.App. 629.
Mont — Corpus Juris cited in Wal-
lace v. Goldberg, 231 P. 56, 57, 72
Mont 234.
119
Neb. — Corpus Juris quoted in Clark
v. Clark, 297 N.W. 661, $64, 139
Neb. 446.
KM.— Davis v. Savage, 158 P.2d 851.
N.T.— Claris v. Richards, 183 NJBL
904, 260 N.T. 419. '
Tenn. — East Lake Lumber Box Co.
v. Simpson, 5 Tenn. App. 51.
33 C.J. p 1154 note 56.
Injection of issue at own peril
Party who injects into action is-
sues not covered by pleadings does
so at peril of any judgment he may
obtain.— Perez v. Wilson, 260 P. 838,
8-6 C&LApp. 28«.
68; U.S. — Reynolds v. Stockton, 11
S.Ct 773, 140 U.S. 254, 35 LJEd.
464, 27 Abb.N.Cas.,N.Y., 112.
Neb. — Corpus Juris quoted in Clark
v. Clark, 297 N.W. 661, 664, 139
Neb. 446.
N.M.— In re Field's Estate, -60 P.2d
945, 40 N.M. 423.
67. OkL — Berglan v. Kuhlman, T7 P.
2d 47, 182 Okl. 168.
68. N.J. — Jones v. Davenport 17 A.
570, 45 N.J.Eq. 77, reversed on oth-
er grounds 19 A. 22, 46 N.J.Eq.
237.
69. Neb. — Bowman v. Cobb, 253 N.
W. 535, 128 Neb. 289%
70. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in
Walling v. Paramount-Richards
Theatres, D.C.La., 61 F.Supp. 290,
304.
CaL— Hicks v. Murray, 43 CaL 515.
71. CaL — Gwinn v. Goldman, 134 P. •
2d 915, 54 CaLApp.2d 393.
§ 51
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
The judgment must correspond with the plead-
ings and proof with respect to the parties for and
against whom it is rendered.72 A judgment for
plaintiff alone cannot be sustained where the com-
plaint or proof shows that he is not the sole owner
of the claim or property involved, but that others
are joint owners thereof.73 A judgment against
a defendant concerning whom no allegations are
made in the declaration or complaint, or against
whom no relief or judgment is sought, ordinarily
is unauthorized.74 Where the complaint asks dif-
ferent relief as against the different defendants, or
alleges only a partial liability on the part of each
of them, there cannot be a general judgment against
one or all of them for the entire claim or demand7^
A judgment against a principal may be proper on
allegations and proof of acts of his agent;76 but
such a judgment cannot be rendered in the absence
of any proof of the alleged agent's authority.77
Under appropriate pleadings and prayers, relief
73. Ala.— Milbra v. Sloss-Shefneld
Steel & Iron Qo., 62 So. 176, 182
Ala. 622, 46 L.R.A.,N.S,, 274.
111.— Russell v. Ortseifen, 54 N.E.2d
612, 322 IlLApp. 695 — Thomas v,
Morris, 41 N.E.2d 990, 314 Ill.App.
570.
Iowa, — O. H. Dunlap & Son v. Marek,
209 N.W. 295.
Ky. — Universal Credit Co. v. Hib-
bard, 117 S.W.2d 583, 273 Ky. -507
— Barnett v. Robinson, 79 S.W.2d
699, 2-5S Ky. 2C5.
Mont. — Montana Auto Finance Cor-
poration v. British & Federal Un-
derwriters of Norwich Union Fire
Ins. Soc., 232 P. 198, 72 Mont -69,
36 A.L.R. 1495.
N.J.— Kienle v. MacFulton, Inc., 174
A. 349, 12 N.J.Misc. 697.
N.Y.— Kittredge v. Grannis, 155 N.
B. 93, 244 N.T. 182— Wheeler v.
Standard Oil Co. of New York, 263
N.Y.S. 272, 237 App.Div. 765, re-
versed on other grounds IS 8 N.R
148, 263 N.Y. 34.
Or.— Chagnot v. Labbe, 69 P.2d 949,
157 Or. 2'80.
Tex. — Gillette Motor Transport Co.
v. Whitfteld, Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d
290 — Travelers Ins. Co. v. Key,
Civ.App., 146 S.W.2d £13— Hous-
ton Oxygen Co. v. Davis, Civ.App.,
145 S.W.2d 300. reversed on other
ground* 161 S.W.2d 474, 339 Tex. 1,
140 A.L.R. 868—- Corpus Juris cited
la Eil wards v. Hatch, Civ.App., 106
S.W.2d 741, 742— Superior Fire
• Ins. Co. v. C. S. Lee Grain & Eleva-
tor Co., Civ.App., 261 S.W. 212—
Hardin v. Palm, Civ.App., 253 S.
W. 94S— Mullin v. Nash-El Paso
Motor Co., Civ.App., 2*0 S.W. 472.
Utah. — Garner v. Anderson, 243 P.
-496, 67 Utah 653.
33 C.J. p 1154 note 31, p 1200 note 19.
Impropiioty of Joint Judgment
In an action against a bank,
brought Jointly by two persons for
whom money jhad been deposited in
trust, where a judgment for plain-
tiffs Jointly would not accord with
the proof, the fact that the bank at
the trial made no objection to the
Joint action cannot enable the court
to enter a Judgment which the law
does not warrant. — Ellison v. New
Bedford Five Cents Sav. Bank, 130
Mass. 48.
Failure of oodefendant to file coun-
terclaim
Where only one of two codefend-
ants has filed counterclaim. Judg-
ment for both defendants on coun-
terclaim is error as to defendant
who did not file any counterclaim. —
C. I. T. Corporation v. Watkins, 181
S.E. 270, 208 N.C. 448.
"Hairs'* as Including "descendants"
A pleading seeking to bring In
"heirs" of certain persons as a class
was held sufficient to make decree
binding on descendants. — Swoope T.
Darrow, 188 So. 879, £37 Ala. 602.
Xntervener
In suit to recover on contract
where there was no plea of inter-
vention by an assignee who claimed
a sum to be due him from plaintiffs,
judgment in favor of plaintiffs and
ordering defendants to pay inter-
vener and deduct the amount from
that due plaintiffs is unsupported by
pleading. — Home Ins. Co., New York,
v. Privttt, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d
294, error dismissed.
Exemplary damages against princi-
pal or sureties
In an action against the principal
and sureties on a bond, a Judgment
for exemplary damages against the
principal only Is not erroneous be-
cause the prayer asked such damag-
es against principal and sureties,
and the verdict was general, where
such damages could not be had
against the sureties. — Emerson v
Skidmore, 25 S.W. 671, 7 TexXJiv.
App. 641.
Municipal officials
Where owner of land taken by city
brought action for value thereof
against city officials In their official
capacity, without attempting to
state cause of action against them
as individuals, and city entered liti-
gation as plaintiff in consolidated
condemnation proceeding, Judgment
against city and officers was held
valid as against city, but void on
face of Judgment roll in so far as
purported to be against individual
officers. — City of Seminole v. Fields,
43 P.2d 64, 172 OkL 167.
73. CaL — -Woodson v. Torgerson, 291
P. 663, 108 Cal.App. 386.
133 O.J. p 1154 note 33.
120
74. Ohio. Fourth & Central Trust
Co. v. Aker Bros., 177 N.B. 602, S*
Ohio App. 247.
Tex. — O'Brien v. Greene Production
Co., Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 900—
Earnhardt Development Co. v. Ray,
Civ.App., SI S.W.2d 732.
33 C.J. p 11 ITS note 37.
Judgment for or against one not par*
ty see supra $28.
Judgment against firm
Where individuals of firm onljr
were sued, and cause of action was
not alleged, or relief sought, against
firm. Judgment against the firm and
individuals as partners, as well as
against individuals, was unauthor*
ized. — Lingwiler v. Anderson, Tex*
Civ.App., 270 S.W. 1052.
Husband's Joinder in answer
Where defendant's husband Joined
in answering suit for injuries, it was
held that Judgment might be ren-
dered against him, although no relief
was asked against him by plaintiff.
— Dickey v. Jackson, Tex.Civ,App.,
293 S.W. 5*84, reversed on other
grounds, Com.App., 1 S.W.2d 577. .
75. Neb.— Trester v. Pike, S3 N.W*
•676, 60 Neb. 510.
33 C.J. p 1155 note 34.
Belief soufflkt only la alternative
Where Judgment against a defend-
ant is sought only in the event it is
found that he was not authorized to
represent a codefendant, and it is
found that he had such authority,
judgment on such cause of action
cannot be rendered against both de-
fendants.— Saner-Ragley Lumber Co.
v. Spivey, Tex.Civ.App.. 255 S.W. 193,
judgment modified on other grounds
Com.App., Spivey y. Saner-Ragley
Lumber Co., 284 S.W. 210.
Judgment against single defendant
held proper
A complaint alleging performance
of services for defendant and others
at their request and an agreement
of defendant to .pay therefor, sup-
ports a Judgment against him alone.
— Delafleld v. San 'Francisco <fe S. M.
R. Co., 40 P. 358, 5 Sal.tlnrep, 73L
78. Wash. — Reed v. National Gro-
cery Co., 238 P. 890, 186 Wash. 7.
77. La. — Melde Tile Hoofing Co. v.
Martinez, 139 So, 72, 19 LauApp. 91.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 51
may be granted to one defendant as against a co-
defendant ;7^ but the court should not go beyond
the pleadings to decree relief as between codefend-
-ants.79
The principle of idem sonans may be invoked to
obviate a variance in the names of the parties,80
and, where, on an inspection of the whole record,
the identity of the parties named in the judgment
and the pleading is clear, the apparent variance will
be held to be a clerical misprision and immaterial,
or at least amendable,81 A variance may be
waived.82
Ejectment.. A judgment in ejectment must con-
form to the pleadings and proofs with respect to
the parties involved.83 This applies where the ac-
tion is predicated on a joint demise,84 and whether
the action is the statutory or the common-law ac-
tion of ejectment.85 A judgment for all the plain-
tiffs cannot be given where the proof shows title
in some,86 or title in part of the premises in one ;87
and it has been held that, if the proof does not
show a joint interest in all who join as plaintiffs,
the action must fail as to all,88 although it has al-
so been held that this rule does not apply where an
equitable defense has been filed.89 In some juris-
dictions, however, a failure to prove title as to some
of the plaintiffs will not prevent a recovery by the
others in whom title is shown.** A judgment for
plaintiffs may be predicated on a declaration al-
leging that the lessors jointly and severally de--
mised, and proof of a tenancy in common, there
being nothing impracticable in joint and several de-
mises of the same land.91
A judgment may be rendered for or against one
or more or all codefendants, in so far as the issues,
proof, and record may justify it92
(2) Personal or Representative Capacity
Judgment for or against a party ordinarily must be
In the capacity, personal or representative, In which he
sues or is sued.
Generally the judgment should be for and against
the parties in the capacity in which they sue and
are sued.93 Where an individual cause of action is
alleged, but plaintiff describes himself as suing in
a representative capacity, he may nevertheless re-
cover in his individual right on proof of the indi-
vidual cause of action alleged, the allegations as to
his representative character being rejected as mere
descriptio persons.94 Where, however, plaintiff al-
leges a cause of action accruing to him only in a
representative capacity, and sues in such a capacity,
proof of a cause of action belonging to him as an
individual is a variance, amounting to a failure of
78. S.C. — Youmans v. Yownans, 121
S.E. 674, 128 S.C. 31.
Tex. — McCart v. Scruggs, Civ.App.,
26 S.W.Sd 173, modified on other
grounds, Com.App., '-28 S.W.2d 637.
79. Idaho— Van -Sicklin v. Mayfield
Land & Livestock Co., 241 P. 1022,
41 Idaho 673.
S.D.— Barry v. G. OU Wood .Farm
Mortg. Co., 211 N.W. 688, 50 S.D.
652.
Tex.— Galloway v. Moeser, Civ.App.,
*2 S.W.2d 1067— Douglas Oil Co. v.
State (California Case), Civ.App.,
70 S.W.2d 452— Western Medical
Arts Bldg. Corporation v. Bryan,
Civ.App., 5 S.W:2d 862, error dis-
missed— San Antonio Southern Ry.
Co. v. Burd, Civ.App., 246 S.W.
1060, modified on other grounds,
Com.App., Burd v. San Antonio
Southern R. Co., -261 S.W. 1021.
Absence of claim of adverse title
A decree was held void In so far
as it awarded rights in land to some
defendants as against other defend-
ants, where they had not claimed
any title adverse to each other. —
Deming v. Nelson, 210 N.W. 726, 50
S.D. 484.
80. Iowa. — Mallory v. Riggs, 30 N.
W. S86, 76 Iowa 743.
33 C.J. p 1201 note 20.
81. OkL — Corpus Juris quoted in
Sorter v. Newton State Bank &
Trust Co., OkL, 295 P. 209, 210,
147 Okl. 136.
Tex. — Corpus Juris cited in Greene
v. Elerding, Civ.App., £91 S.W.
271, 272— Robinson v. Watkins,
Civ.App., 271 S.W. 288.
Wash.— Wetzel v. Clise, 26« P. 161,
148 Wash. 75.
33 C.J. p 1201 note 21, p 1168 note 28
Cb] (1).
Entry of Judgment in correct corpo-
rate name
If corporation were known by an-
other name than that set forth in
pleadings, or were mistakenly named
in pleadings, there being no corpo-
ration of the name set forth, Judg-
ment against corporation in its cor-
rect name would be warranted. —
Wichita Falls & Southern Ry. Co. v.
Foreman, Tex.Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d
549.
82. HL— Edwards v. Warner, 111
ULApp. -32.
33 C.J. p 1201 note 2*2.
83. Ga. — Shaddix v. Watson, 61 S.
E. 828, 130 Ga. 764.
19 C.J. p 1209 note 20 [f].
94. U.S.— Garrard v. Reynold, Ky., 4
How. 123, 11 LuEd. 903.
19 C.J. p 1217 note 52%.
85. Ga. — Callaway v. Irvin, 51 S.B.
477, 123 Ga. 344.
19 C.J. p 1217 note 52%.
121
86. Cal. — Tormey v. Pierce, 42 CaL
S3*.
19 C.J. p 1217 notes 62%, «2%.
87. Mich.— Lynch v. Kirby, 36 Mich.
238.
SB. Ga. — McQlamory v. McCormick,
24 S.E. 941, 99 Ga. 14$.
19 C.J. p 1217 note 52#.
89. Ga. — Milner v. Vandivere, 12 S*
E. 879, 86 Ga. 540.
90. 111.— Whitham v. Ellsworth, 102
N.E. 223, 259 lit 243.
13 C.J. p 1217 note 52%.
91. Ky. — Courtney v. Shropshire, 3
Litt. 265.
19 C.J. p 1217 note 52*io.
92. Ala. — Simmons v. Sharpe, 42 <So.
441, 148 Ala. 217.
19 C.J. p 1217 note 55.
93. U.S. — Gonzalez v. Roman Cath-
olic Archbishop of Manila, Phil.
Islands, 50 S.Ct 5, 280 U.S. 1, 74
L.Ed. 131.
Minn. — Briggs v. Kennedy Mayon-
naise Products, 297 N.W. -842, 209
Minn. 312.
Tex. — Rockhold v. Lucky Tiger Oil
Co., Civ.App., 4 S.W.2d 1046, error
dismissed.
33 O.J. p 1155 note 39.
94. U.S. — Newberry v. Robinson, C.
C.N.Y,, 36 F. 841.
33 C.J. p 1155- note 40.
§ 51
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
proof, and it has been held that he cannot recov-
er,95 Similarly, where plaintiff sues in his individu-
1 al capacity and the proof shows a right to recover
only in a representative capacity, it has been held
that there is a fatal variance.96 A defense good
against plaintiff in his individual capacity is not
necessarily a bar to a judgment for plaintiff in his
representative capacity.97
A personal judgment against a defendant who is
sued only in his official or representative capacity,98
or a judgment against one in his representative ca-
pacity when he is sued only in his individual capac-
ity,99 is defective. Where the pleadings are ambig-
uous as to the capacity in which plaintiff sues, or
defendant is sued, the theory on which the case was
tried controls the judgment.1
Executors and administrators. It has been held
that, if an executor or administrator sues as such,
he cannot recover in his individual right;2 but
there are also cases in which an individual recovery
by one who sued as executor or administrator has
been regarded as permissible.8 If a person sues in-
dividually, he cannot recover as executor or admin-
istrator.4 If an action is brought against a person
individually, judgment cannot be rendered against
him as the personal representative of another.5
Similarly, as a general rule, where one is sued as
executor or administrator, no personal judgment
may be rendered against him,6 although there are
cases in which it has been regarded as permissible
to render a personal judgment against one so sued.7
A plaintiff cannot object to a decree because it
was rendered against him in the name and capacity
in which he sued.8 Where a party is sued as per-
sonal representative, any judgment in his favor
should be in his representative, rather than in his
individual, capacity.9
b. Property Affected
A Judgment affecting property should be limited to
that described In the pleadings and proof, and, accord-
ing to some authorities, a Judgment affecting other
property is void.
A judgment affecting property should be limited
to the property described in the pleadings,10 and
judgments affecting other property have been held
96. 111.— Stokes v. Riley, 11 N.E.
877, 121 111. 166.
33 CJ. p 1153 note 41.
96. Mo.-— Vaughan v. St Louis & S.
F. R. -Co., 164 S.W. 144, 177 Mo.
App. 155.
33 C.J. p 1155 note 42.
97. N.Y.— Scranton v. Farmers' &
Mechanics' Bank, 33 Barb. 527, af-
firmed 24 N.T. 424.
98. Cal.— Reed v. Molony, 101 P.2d
175, 38 Cal.App,2d 405.
Mo.— Baird v. National Health Foun-
dation, 144 -S.W.2d «50, 235 Mo.
App. 694.
33 CJ. p 1155 note 44.
99. Conn.— Joseph v. Donovan, 164
A. 498, 116 Conn. 160.
33 C.J. p 1155 note 45.
3^ U.S. — Fortier v. New Orleans
Nat Bank, La., 5 S.Ct. 234, 112 U.
S. 439, 28 L.Ed. 764.
33 C.J. P 1155 note 46.
2. Cal.— Rogers v. Schlotterback,
138 P. 728, 167 Cal. 35.
24 C.J. p 885 note 49.
3. La.-JChildress v. Davis, 15 iLa.
49*2.
24 C.J. P 885 note 50, 33 C.J. P H'55
note 40.
4. Me. — Hayes v. Rich, 64 A. 659,
101 Me. 314, 11'5 Am.S.R. 314.
24 C.J. P #85 note 51.
& Ala.— Singleton v, Gayle, * Port.
270.
24 C.J. p 885 note 52.
€. Neb.— Burton v. Williams, 88 N.
W. 765, 63 Neb. 431.
24 C.J. p 885 note 53.
7. Tenn. — Braden v. Hollingsworth,
$ Humphr. 19.
24 C.J. p 88-6 notes 64, 55.
a Vt.— Sowles v. Sartwell, 56 A.
282, 76 Vt. 70.
9. La. — Succession of Moore, App.,
193 So. 222.
10. U.S.— Baten v. Kirby Lumber
Corporation, C.C.A.Tex., 103 F.2d
272.
Ala.— Alford v. Rodgers, 6 So.2d 409,
242 Ala. 370 — Parker v. Duke, 157
So. 43-6, 229 Ala. 361.
Ariz.- Williams v. Earhart, 278 P.
728, 34 Ariz. -565.
Cal.— Alpha Stores v. Croft, 140 P.
2d 688, 60 Cal.App.2d 349— Judson
v. Herrington, 150 P.2d 802, 55 Cal.
App.2d 476.
Ga.— Tinsley v. Commercial Credit
Co., 164 S.E. 454, 45 Ga.App. 297.
Idaho.— Nielson v. Garrett, 43 P.2d
380, 55 Idaho 240.
Mo.— Pioneer Cooperage Co. v. Dil-
lard, '59 S.W.2d 642, 332 Mo. 798—
Wilkinson v. Lieberman, 37 S.W.
3d 6(33, 327 Mo. 420— Garrison v.
City of Ozark, App., 248 S.W. 975.
Tex.— Martin v. Abbott, Civ.App., 24
S.W.2d 488 — Stevenson v. Barrow,
Civ.App., 285 S.W. 840, reversed on
other grounds, Com. App., 291 S.W.
1101— Holasek v. Jahek, Civ.App,
244 S.W. 285.
W.Va.— George v. Male, 153 S.E. 507,
109 W.Va, 222.
19 C.J. p 1209 note 20 [a], [b]— 33 C.
J. p 1168 note 32 — 47 C.J. p 430
note 65—51 C.J. p 269 note 25 [c],
[d].
122
Judgments held proper
(1) Where there was no question
as to what land was in dispute and
land was fully described in the de-
cree covering land in controversy,
decree was not erroneous because
not in conformity with pleadings. —
Arnd v. Harrington, 2*87 N.W. 292,
227 Iowa 43.
(2) In action to establish title to
strip of land between fence and al-
leged true boundary line inside fence,
a judgment embracing less land than
that claimed in pleadings was prop-
er, where land recovered was locat-
ed precisely as contended for by
plaintiffs' petition, except as respects
width of strip.— Humble Oil & Re-
fining Co. v. Owings, Tex.Civ.App.,
128 S.W.2d 6-7.
(3) A judgment providing for the
return of certain tires was held prop-
er under pleadings dealing with the
"equipment" of a certain gasoline
station. — Haley v. Traeger, 268 P.
459, 92 Cal. App. 360.
(4) Where description of land in
decree vesting title did not follow
that in the bill, but included the
tract in question and land could be
ascertained, there was held to be a
sufficient description. — Gaylor v.
Gaylor, 1 Tenn. App. 645.
(5) Other cases.
Ga.—Cason v. United Realty & Auc-
tion Co., in S.B. 161, 161 Ga, 374.
Tex.— Wells v. Laird, Civ.App., 57
S.W.*2d 3*95, error refused — Steven-
son v. Barrow, Civ. App., 285 S.W.
840, reversed on other grounds,
Com.App., 291 S.W. 1101.
49. C..J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§'51
to be void11 although as to this there is ajso author- !
ity to the contrary.12 It has been held that 'the fact
that a description in a judgment fixing the bounda-
ries of land involved in a litigation differed from
the description in the pleadings was immaterial
where there was evidence to support the descrip-
tion in the judgment.13
A judgment should also be supported by the proof
as to the property involved,14 and hence a judg-
ment following a description in the complaint which
is not supported by the evidence cannot stand.16
c. Quieting Title
Actions to quiet title are governed by the general
rules with respect to conformity of the judgment with
the pleadings and proofs, including the rules as to the
granting of affirmative relief to a defendant.
The rule requiring the relief afforded by the judg-
ment to conform to the case made out by the plead-
ings and proofs has been applied in actions to quiet
title.16 It is error to grant a decree quieting plain-
tiffs title on proof of facts showing merely a right
to specific performance,17 and, where the bill con-
tains only statutory averments, relief cannot be
granted on general principles of equity.18 Under
the broad provisions of some statutes, plaintiff may
so frame his petition as to authorize either legal
or equitable relief.1^
Affirmative relief not authorized by the pleadings
and proof cannot be granted to defendant,20 and
in some jurisdictions it has been held that the
court cannot decree that defendant has the su-
perior title where he files no cross complaint21
and does not pray for such relief;22 but in others it
has been held that defendant's title may be declared
superior if the facts justify it, although he files no
cross complaint or otherwise asks for such relief.23
If defendants set up equities and pray for judg-
ment and for general relief, an award of affirmative
11. Tenn.— Central Sav. Bank v.
Carpenter. 37 S.W. 278, 97 Tenn.
4'37.
33 C.J. p 1168 note S3.
12. Tex.— Williamson V. Wright, 1
Tex.Unrep.Cas. 711.
33 C.J. P 1169 note 34.
13. Cal. — Dreyer v. Cole, 292 P. 123,
210 Cal. 3:39.
14. 111. — Osmonson v. Buck, 162 N.
E. 142, 331 111. 25.
Concession by party
A judgment awarding plaintiff
land to which he concedes he is mak-
ing no claim, and to which defend-
ant appears to have a better title, is
erroneous. — Hecker v. Bleish, 8 S.
W.2d 1008, 319 Mo. 149.
15. Neb.— Cashing v. Conness, 95 N.
W. 855, 4 Neb. (Unoff.) 66-8.
ia Cal.— Baar v. Smith, 255 P. 827,
201 Cal. 87— Bartholomae Oil Cor-
poration v. Delaney, 296 P. 690,
112 CaLAfcp. 314.
Mo. — Congregation B'Nai Abraham v.
Arky, 20 S.W.2d 899, 323 Mo. 776.
N.M. — Otero v. Totl, 273 P. 917, 33
N.M. 613.
N.C. — Johnston v, Johnston, 12 S.
B.2d 248, 218 N.C. 706.
Utah. — Bolognese v. Anderson, 90 P.
2d 275, 97 Utah 136 — Bertolina v.
Frates, 57 P.2d 346, 89 Utah 238.
51 C.J. p 2*9 note 25 [a]-[g].
Jurisdiction*! facts
Although defendant's occupancy of
the land was not alleged in the
pleadings, it was nevertheless juris-
dictional, and the court having found
as a fact that defendant was in acitu-
al possession when the suit was
commenced, the bill was properly
dismissed.— Dolph v. Norton, 123 N.
W. 13, 158 Mich. 417.
Taxes, penalties, and costs
In action for possession of, and to
Quiet title to, realty, portion of Judg-
ment allowing personal recovery
against defendant for accumulated
taxes, penalties, and costs, an£ de-
creeing lien against property, was
held void where Issue as to such
part of judgment was not raised by
pleadings or evidence. — Fuqua v.
Watson, 46 P.2d 486. 172 Okl. 624.
Cancellation of deed as cloud on ti-
tle
Where the clear purpose of a bill
is to relieve plaintiff's land from the
incubus of a mortgage foreclosure
sale, allegations which show the in-
validity of the sale as against plain-
tiff, coupled with a prayer for gen-
eral relief, are sufficient to war-
rant cancellation of the deed as a
cloud on title, although the special
prayer was for redemption and re-
conveyance to the mortgagor. — Dixie
Grain Co. v. Quinn, 61 So. 886, 181
Ala. 208.
TTnder statute authorizing- determin-
ation. of adverse claims
Where the complaint embraces ev-
ery averment necessary to sustain
an action to Quiet title under the
general provisions of the -statute re-
lating to such actions, a judgment
quieting title is proper, although the
action was brought under another
statute authorizing an action to de-
termine adverse claims by one in ad-
verse possession of the property who
has paid taxes thereon during a des-
J4ro*±*d period^—Bmst v. Tiel, 197
P. «U9, «1 CaLApp, 747.
Judgments Held
issues
Cal. — District Bond Co. v. Pollack,
121 P.2d 7, 19 CaL2d 304*
123
o.— Ebbs v. Neff, 30 S.W.2d 616,
325 Mo. 1182.
Mont — Thomson v. Nygaard, 41 P.2d
1, 98 Mont 529.
Okl. — -'Simmons v. Howard, 27-6 P.
71*8, 136 OkL 118,
17. Mo. — Congregation B'Nai Abra-
ham v. Arky, 20 S.W.2d 899, 823
Mo. 776.
Utah. — Hennefer v. Hays, 47 P. 90,
14 Utah 324.
18. Ala. — First Ave. Coal & -Lum-
ber Co. v. King, 69 So. 549, 193
'Ala. 438 — Fowler v. Alabama Iron
& Steel Co., 45 So. 635, 154 Ala.
497.
19. Mo. — Murphy v. Barren, 205 &
W. 49, 275 Mo. 282.
51 C.J. p 270 note 29.
20. N.D. — Brown v. "Comonow, 114
N.W. 728, 17 N.D. 84.
51 C.J. p 276 note 30.
21. CaL — Hungarian Hill Gravel
Min. Co. v. Moses, 58 Cal. 168.
Ky.— Spradlin v. Patrick, 64 S.W.
•840, 23 Ky,L. 1156.
22. Tex.— State v. Black, 297 S.W.
213, 118 Tex. 615, 53 A.L.R. 1181.
51 C.J. P 276 note 32.
23. Mich.— Miller v. Steele, 109 N.
W. 37, 14* Mich. 123.
51 C.J. p 276 note 33.
Belief "based on plaintiff's pleading
Where the statute authorizes the
court to determine the title and in-
terests of all the parties, and plain-
tiff's prayer asks that this be done,
it is proper for the court, if title is
found to be in defendant, so to de-
tervtine, without any prayer on the
tetter's part. — Himmelberger-Harri-
son Lumber Co. v. Jones, 119 S.W.
366, 220 Mo. 190—51 C.J. p 276 not*
34.
51
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
relief is proper, without a prayer for "affirmative
relief in those terms.24
d. Other Applications
The rules governing conformity of Judgments with
the pleadings, Issues, and proofs have been applied In a
great variety of cases, the propriety of the particular
relief granted depending on all the facts and circum-
stances.
The rules with respect to the necessity that judg-
ments conform to, and be sustained by, the plead-
ings and proofs, the relief sought, and the issues,
have been applied in numerous cases in addition to
those already considered; and, following such rules,
the relief granted under the circumstances has been
held proper in actions or judgments for or relating
to accounts or accounting,26 annulment of mar-
riage,26 antenuptial agreements,27 attorney's fees,23
bonds,29 breach of marriage promise,30 building
contracts,31 cancellation of instruments,32 commis-
sions,33 deeds,34 dower,35 easements,3* ejectment,3*
establishment or priority of liens,38 executors and
administrators,39 foreclosure,^ improvements,41 in-
24. Tex.— McCullough v. Rucker,
115 S.W. 323, 53 Tex.Civ.A-pp. 89.
25. Cal. — Nelson v. Abraham, App.,
162 P.2d 333— Sly' v. Abbott, 264
P. 507, 89 CaLApp. 209— Miller v.
Superior Court of California in and
for ILos Angeles County, 210 P.
832, :59 CaLApp. 340.
Ga.— Grant v. Hart, 80 S.E.2d 271,
197 Ga. 6-62.
Mo.— Welch-Sandier Cement Co. v.
Mullins, App., 31 S.W.2d 86— Loge-
man Mfg. Co. y. Logernan, App.,
298 S.W. 1040.
Xex. — Zimmerman v. Millan, Civ.
App., 141 'S.W.2d 3-94— Samuels v.
Finkelstein, Qiv.App., 25 S.W.2d
•923, error dismissed.
26. CaL-JFigoni v. Figoni, 295 P.
•339, 211 Cal. 354.
27. 111.— Parker v. Gray, 148 N.B.
323, 317 111. 468.
Kan.— Baldwin v. Baldwin, 98 P.2d
614, 150 Kan. 507.
28. Cal. — Martin v. Pacific South
west Royalties, 106 P.2d 443, 41
Cal.App.2d 161.
La, — -Wild v. Standard General Real
ty Co., App., 145 So. 58, affirmed
149 'So. 114, 177 La. 664.
Tex.— Rychener v. McGuire, Civ
App., 66 'S.W.'2d 418.
29. Tex. — I>e Zavala r. Scanlan
Com.App., 65 S.W.2d 489.
30. Tenn. — Poster v. Andrews, 18
S.W;2d 580.
31. Cal.— Karlik v. Peters, 288 P
•»63, 106 CaLApp. 126.
9 C.J. p 892 note 51.
32. Cal. — Empire Lease & Royalt
Co. v. Jones, 8 P.2d 512, 121 Cal
APp. 23.
Ga.— Cason v. United Realty & Auc
tton Co., 131 S.B. 161, 161 Ga. 374
Mich.— Drinski v. Drinski, 15 N.W
•2d 714, 309 Mich. 479.
Okl.— Exchange Bank of Perry v
Nichols, 164 P.2d 867.
Tex.— Sabens v. fiochruxn, dv.App
292 S.^. 281. - '
Fraud as "actual" or "constructive"
Where petition for cancellation of
ease recited facts and prayed for a
ecree declaring the lease to be il-
egal and void because of fraud, and
rdering cancellation thereof and
or such other, further, and differ-
nt relief as equity and justice
might require, a holding that con-
tructive fraud existed was within
petition, although neither "actual"
ior "constructive" was used in con-
aection with charge of fraud. — John-
son v. Radio Station W O W, 14 N.
W.2d '$66, 144 Neb. 406, reversed on
other grounds 65 <S.Ct. 147-5, 32* IT.
S. 120, 8'9 L.B?d. 2092, motion denied
66 S.Ct 11.
Inability to surrender stock
Where a petition for the cancella-
tion of stock contained a prayer for
general relief, it authorized a judg-
ment for the value of the stock
which a stockholder was ordered to
surrender for cancellation, but which
le was unable to surrender because
tie had transferred it to a brokerage
. — McCombs Producing & Refin-
ing Co. V. Ogle, 254 S.W. 4'25, 200 Ky.
208.
33, Ark.— Core v. Henley, 16 S.W.2d
579, 179 Ark. 488.
Conn. — Nocera v. La Mattina, 145 A.
271, 109 Conn. 5*89.
Tex.— Murchison v. Ballard, Civ.
App., 17* S.W.2d 554, error re-
fused— Jones v. Bledsoe, Civ.App.,
293 S.W. 204.
. Adams, 117 S.B.
335, 30 Ga.App. 197.
HI. — Burroughs v. Mefforfl, 5-6 N.B.
2d 845, 387 111. 461— Hayes v. Min-
iter, 139 N.m 74, 308 111. 22.
Mo.— Presbyterian Orphanage of
Missouri v. Fitterling, 114 S.W.2d
1004, 342 Mo. 299— Mayberry v.
Clark, 297 S.W. 39, 317 Mo. 442.
rpex. — Green v. Duncan, CivJV.pp., 134
S.W.2d 744.
35(i Ark.— Less v. Less, 249 S.W.
583, 158 Ark. 25-5.
36. 111. — Stowell v. Prentiss, 154 N.
El 120, 323 111. 309, 50 A.L.R. 584.
Ky.— Wilson v. Trent, 38 S.W.2d 429,
23* Ky. 551.
124
37. Ariz.— Keystone Copper Min. Co.
v. Miller, 164 P.2d 603.
Ky.— Parkey v. Arthur, $3 S.W.2d
921, 245 Ky. 525.
j£0. — Marsden v. Nipp, 30 S.W.23 77,
525 Mo. 822.
Application of rules with respect to
parties in action of ejectment see
supra subdivision a (1) of this
section.
5. Idaho.— Gillette v. Oberholtzer,
264 P. 229, 45 Idaho 571.
Iowa.— Holden v. VoeHcer, 293 N.W.
32, 228 Iowa 589.
Ky.— Smith v. Sellers, 284 S.W. 1*34,
215 Ky. 181.
39. Cal.— Tarien v. Katz, 1*5 P.2d
493, 216 Cal. 5-54, 85 AL.R. 334.
Ga. — Sangster v. Toledo Mfg. Co., 1>
S.B.2d 723, 193 Ga. 685.
Mo.'— Reed v. Tedford, App., 72 S.
W.2d 207.
2-4 C.J. p 884 notes 44 [a]-[e3.
Personal or representative capacity
see supra subdivision a (2) of
this section.
40. Ga.— Ten-Fifty Ponce de Leon
Co. v. Citizens' & Southern Nat.
Bank, 153 S.B. 751, 170 Ga. 642.
Tex — Stoutz v. Amarillo Bank &
Trust Co., Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 778,
error dismissed
Utah. — Meissner v. Ogden, L. & 1.
Ry. Co., 233 IP. 569, 65 Utah 1.
Wash.— Beadle v. Barta, 123 P.2d
761, 13 Wash.2d 67.
42 C.J. p 142 note 53 [fj» P 143 note
57 [a], [b].
Bights of purchaser at foreclosure
Where there was an actual con-
troversy before the court as to the
rights of purchaser in property pur-
chased at foreclosure sale, judgment
declaring purchaser at foreclosure
sale to be the owner of the property
subject only to right of redemption,
and that his title thereto subject
to such right be Quieted against any
and all claims of perseas claiming
property by adverse possession, was
proper.-HSnyder v. Pine Grove Lum-
ber Co., 105 P.2d 369, 40 Cal.App.2d
660.
1. Mo. — Sutton v. Anderson, 31 S.
W.2d 10*26, (326 Mo. 804.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 51
junctive relief,42 insurance,4^ leases or rents,44
notes,4* oil or gas leases or royalties,46 partner-
ships,47 partition,4* patents,49 personal injuries,50
quo warranto,51 rescission,5^ services rendered,53
specific performance,54 trespass,55 trusts,56 and oth-
er matters.57
42. Cal.— Knox v. Wolfe, App., 167
P.2d 3— Sharp v. Big Jim Mines,
103 P.2d 430, 39 Cal.App.2d 435.
Mo. — Meder v. Wilson, App., 192 S.
W.2d 606.
TTse of private way
Decree enjoining use of a private
way over defendants' land connect-
ing plaintiffs' tracts was not beyond
pleading of injunction suit where
decree only determined plaintiffs' ti-
tle to an easement and not title to
a fee.— Fassold v. Schamfcurg. 166
S.W.2d 571, i350 Mo. 464.
43. Kan. — Dobrauc v. Concordia
Fire Ins. Co., 10 P.2d 875, 135
Kan. 297.
La. — Richmond v. New York Life
Ins. Co., App., 25 So.2d 94.
Mo. — Homan v. Employers Reinsur-
ance Corporation, 136 S.W.Sd 289,
845 Mo. 650, 127 A.L.R. 163— Nick
v. Travelers Ins. Co., App., 185
• S.W.2d 326— De Mott v. Great
American Ins. Co. of New York,
181 S.W.2d 64, 234 Mo.App. 31.
N.Y. — Borszewski v. Bukowski, 260
N.Y.S. 643, 145 Misc. 680.
Tex. — Georgia Home Ins. Co. v.
Trice, Civ.App., 70 «S.W.2d 356, er-
ror dismissed — Northern Assur.
Co. v. Herd, Civ.App.. 27* S.W. 884.
33 C.J. p 144 note 83 [a].
Change of beneficiary
Allegation that change of benefi-
ciary of life policy was inequitable,
unjust, voidable, and ought to be set
aside was held sufficient to support
decree for first beneficiary as against
contention that decree did not con-
form to pleadings because no fraud
was found. — Travelers' Ins. Co. v.
Gebo, 170 A. 917, 106 Vt 155.
44. La. — Chambers v. Vega, 137 So.
879, 18 La.App. 756.
N.Y. — Longo v. Sparano, 196 N.Y.&.
344, 119 Misc. 402.
S.C. — Stackhouse v. (Pure Oil Co., 180
S.E. 188, 176 6.C. 318.
45. Iowa. — Iowa State Sav. Bank of
Malvern v. Young, 244 N.W. 271,
214 Iowa 1287, 84 A.L.R. 1400,
rehearing denied 245 N.W. 864, 84
A.L.R. 1400.
Kan. — Illinois Life Ins. Co. v*
Young, 235 P. 104, 118 Kan. 308,
certiorari denied Young v. Still-
well, 46 «S.Ct 21, 269 U.S. 560, 70
L.Ed. 412.
Ky. — Board of Education of Pulaski
County v. Nelson, 88 S.W.ifd 17,
261 Ky. 466.
Or. — Boyce v. Toke Point Oyster Co.,
Consol., 25 P.2d 930, 145 Or. 114.
Tex. — Dashiel v. LOtt, Com.App., 243
S.W. 1072.
Alternative prayer for balance on
open account
In action on notes, where evidence
showed payment of notes but exist-
ence of undisputed balance due
payee on open account, payee was
entitled to judgment for balance on
open account under amended com-
plaint praying for such relief in al-
ternative.— Federal Rubber Co. v. M.
M. 5Stewart Co., 41 P.2d 158, 180
Wash. 625.
mdividtifll obligation of codef endant
Where petition in action against
defendants, as partners, on a note
executed by codef endant and payable
to plaintiff, copied the note in hsec
verba and contained prayer for gen-
eral relief, and petition showed on
its face that note as drawn was an
individual obligation of codefendant,
petition was sufficient to support a
judgment against codefendant. —
Poynor v. Adams, Tex.Civ.App., 135
S.W.2d 722.
46. Kan.— Flitch v. Boyle, 89 (P.2d
909, 0.49 Kan. 884— McDermed v.
Ackley, 44 P.2d 27-4, 141 Kan. 818.
Tex.— Caldwell-Guadalupe. Pick-Up
Stations v. Gregg, Civ.App., 276 <3,
W. 3-42, modified on other grounds
Gregg v. Caldwell-Guadalupe Pick-
Up Stations, Com. App., 286 S.W.
1083.
47. La. — Blanchard v. Patterson,
119 So. 902, 9 La.App. 706.
48. Ky. — Howard v. Carmichael, 55
S.W.2d 852, 237 Ky. 462.
Mo.— Virgin v. Kennedy, 32 S.W.2d
91, 326 Mo. 400.
Tex. — Bowles v. Bryan, Civ. App., 277
S.W. 760.
49. U.S. — General Motors Corpora-
tion v. Leer Auto Supply Co., C.
C.A.N.Y., 60 F.2d 902.
50. Ala. — City of Birmingham v.
Smith, 163 So. 611, 231 Ala. 95.
Ky. — Harmon v. Rose, 32 -S.W.2d 67,
235 Ky. 701.
Tex. — Caddo Warehouse & Transfer
Co. v. Riley, Civ.App., 7 S.W.2d
137, error dismissed.
51. Fla.— City of Auburndale v.
State ex reL Landls, 184 So. 787,
135 Fla. 172.
52. La. — Houston-Long Co. v. Fair-
cloth, 137 So. 594, 18 La.App. 423,
Judgment fiadag damages to ven-
dor for failure of consideration may
be entered under complaint for re-
scission and evidence showing value
of property and consideration. — Mas-
ero v. Bessolo, 262 P. 61, 87 Cal.
App. 262.
53. Cal.— Maxwell v. Jimeno, 265 P.
885, 89 CaLApp. 612 — Rosener v.
Hanlon Dry Bock & Shipbuilding
Co., 236 (P. 183, 71 CaLApp. 767.
La. — McCook v. Comegys, 125 So.
134, 169 La, 312.
Tex. — Reymershotter v. Ray, Civ.
125
App., 85 S.W.2d 1102, error re-
fused.
54. Cal. — Roark v. Southern Trust
& Commerce Bank, 288 (P. 110, 105
CaLApp. 521.
Wis.— In re Shinoe's Estate. 250 N.
W. 505, 212 Wis. 481.
Option to purchase
A Judgment decreeing specific per-
formance of tan option to purchase
contained in a lease was not void
merely because complaint failed spe-
cifically to allege that option speci-
fied adequate consideration or that
the contract was fair, where issue
of adequacy was conceded by the
conduct of defendants at the trial
and findings of adequacy and fair-
ness were supported by evidence. —
Drullinger v. Erskine, CaLApp., 16&
P.2d 48.
55. Ky.— Siler v. Cannon, 130 S.W.
2d 742, 279 Ky. 328— Chapman v.
Majestic Collieries Co., 288 S.W.
299, 216 Ky. 652.
56. Cal.— Webb v. Vercoe, 258 P.
1099, 201 Cal. 754, 54 A.L.R. 1200.
57. TLS. — Municipal Excavator Co.
v. Siedhoff, C.OA.Kan., 15 F.2d
10.
Ariz.— Betts v. Lightning Delivery
Co., 22 P.2d 827, 42 Ariz. 105.
Cal. — Estrin v. Superior Court in and
for Sacramento County, 96 F.2d
340, 14 Cal.2d 670— (Peak v. Repub-
lic Truck Sales Corporation, 230 P.
948, 194 Cal. -782— Wiley v.
Wright, 79 P.2d 196, 26 CaLApp*
2d 305— Burd v. Downing, 213 P.
287, 60 CaLApp. 493.
Conn. — Heneault v. Papas, 121 A. 273,
99 Conn. 164.
Ga.— Phillips v. Whelchel, 170 S.E.
480, 177 Ga. 489— Stover v. Atlan-
tic Ice & Coal Corporation, 125 S.E.
837, 159 Gku 357— Powell v. Black-
stock, 13 S.E.2d 503, 6'4 Ga.App.
442.
Idaho.^-Angel v. Mellen, 285 (P. 461,
48 Idaho 750.
HL — Johnson v. Watson, 33 N.E.2S
130, .309 IlLApp. 440— Martin J.
Hecht, Inc., v. Steigerwald, 24 N.
E.2d 394, 302 IlLApp. 556.
Ind. — Hosanna v. Odishoo, 193 NJ3L
599, 208 Ind. 132, rehearing denied
195 N.E. 72, 208 Ind. 132— Wag-
goner v. Honey, 169 N.BL 349, 91
Ind.App. $1.
Ky. — Ben Humplch ISand Co. v»
Moore, 69 S.W.2d 396, 253 Ky.
667 — Consolidation Coal Co. v.
Riddle, 248 S.W. 530, 198 Ky. 256.
La. — Sanders De Hart v. Continental
Land & Pur Co., 17 So.2d 827, 205
La. 569.
Mass.— Gallup v. Barton, 47 N.E.2d
921, 313 Mass. -379.
Mich. — Wesorick v. Winans, 269 N.
W. 609, 277 Mich. 589— Hogan v.
I 51
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
On the other hand, following the rules with re-
spect to conformity of judgments with the plead-
ings, proofs, and issues, particular relief has been
held improper in actions or judgments for or re-
lating to accounting,58 adverse possession,59 attor-
neys' fees,60 cancellation of instruments,61 checks,62
commissions,6^ condemnation of property,6* conver-
sion,65 deeds and conveyances,66 ejectment,67 exec-
Whltcomb, 206 N.W. 328, 233 Mich.
403.
Minn. — Child v. "Washed Sand &
Gravel Co., 233 N.W. 586, 181
Minn. 559.
Mo. — Timmonds v. Wilbur, 260 S.W.
1004— Fielder v. Fielder, App., 6
S.W.2d 968 — Sanders v. "Sheets,
App., 287 S.W. 1069 — Menefee v.
Scally, App., 247 S.W. 259.
•Okl.— Cusa'ck v. McMasters, 279 P.
329, tt<37 Okl. 278.
S.C.— In re Sugg's Estate. 51 S.B.
263, 71 S.C. 439.
Utah.— Jeffries v. Third Judicial
Dist. Court of Salt Lake County,
63 P.2d 242, 90 Utah 525.
Wash.— Robinson v. Puget Electric
Welding Co., 299 P. 405, 162 Wash.
626.
33 C.J. p 1168 note 28 [a] (1), [b].
•Reformation
•It has been held that reformation
need not have been asked for spe-
cifically in the pleading to permit
the court to enforce a contract as
.•actually made, although not in a,c-
•cordance with a copy attacked as
fraudulent. — Hornick v. Union Pac.
R. Co., 118 P. 60, 85 Kan. 568, 38
X,.R.A.,N.S., 826, Ann.Cas.l913A 208.
S8. Conn. — "Steinmetz v. Steinmetz,
7 A.2d 915, 125 Conn. 663.
«Fla.— Garden 'Suburbs Golf & Coun-
try Club v. iPruitt, 24 So.Sd 898,
Mo.-^Palnier v. -Marshall, App., 24
S.W.2d 229.
N.Y.— Hauenstein v. Fisher, 34 N.Y.
S.2d 902, 264 App.Div. 825— Clark-
son v. Lusher, 5 N.Y.S.2d 631, 255
App.Div. 705, resettled In re Lush-
ex's Will, 7 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 255
App.Div. 860.
Okl. — Bishop v. Franks, 107 P.2d 358,
188 oki. iae.
Profit from resale
Where, at the time a suit against
.a company and some of its stock-
holders for accounting was Institut-
ed, erne defendant had not yet ac-
quired a deed of trust to the cor-
poration's property, and no supple-
mental bill was filed, it could not
Tiave been contemplated by the
pleadings that the holder of the
trust deed should be reauired to ac-
count for any profit from resale
.after foreclosure, and a Judgmen^
requiring him to so account was
without the scope of the pleadings
and void. — Lewis v. School, Mo.App.
244 .S.W. 90.
[Personal Judgment against corporate
director
Where complaint by stockholders
^alleged that director flailed to ac
•count for proceeds of stock and ap-
propriated other money of corpora-
tion and prayed an accounting, per-
sonal judgment against director ex-
ceeded relief prayed for. — Angel v.
Mellen, 285 P. 461, 48 Idaho 750.
Claim not referred to in complaint
In action for accounting by land-
owner on contract for building hous-
es, judgment in-eluding amount bas-
ed on claim not referred to in com-
plaint could not be sustained. — Aus-
tin v. Harry E. Jones, Inc., 44 P.
2d 667, 6 Cal.App.2d 493.
59. Tex. — Stevenson v. Barrow, Civ.
App., 265 S.W. 602.
60. Cal.— Swanson v. Hempstead,
149 P.2d 404, 64 Cal.App.2d 681.
Tex. — Thompson v. Kleinman, Civ.
App., 259 S.W. 593.
61. Ala.— «mith v. Smith, 114 So.
192, 216 Ala. 570.
Ga, — Land Development Corporation
v Union Trust Co. of Maryland,
180 S.E. 836, 180 Ga. 785— De
Loach v. (Purcell, 145 S.E. 424,
166 Ga, 562.
.— Denney v. Peters, 10 N.E.2d
754, 104 Ind.App. 504.
y. — In-ez Deposit Bank v. Pinson,
122 S.W.2d 1031, 276 Ky. 84.
La. — Switzer v. Driscoll, App., 183
So. 57.
Mo.— McKay v. «Snider, 190 S.W.2d
886.
Tex.— Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank
v. King, Civ.App., 167 S.W.2d 245,
error refused — Home Ben. Ass'n
v. Allee, Civ.App., 128 S.W.2d 417
— -Armstrong v. Murray Tool &
Supply Co., Civ.App., 31 S.W.2d
1101.
Bar of future action
A recital In a Judgment denying
plaintiff's claim for forfeiture and
cancellation of lease that it should
not be a bar to any future action
for damages or specific performance,
being an adjudication of a matter
not presented by the pleadings, is
erroneous. — Masterson v. Amarillo
Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 253 S.W. 908
Money damages held improper
Where wife, prior to divorce, con-
tracted with husband and executed
deed of community property to him
and after divorce Instituted action
to annul contract and deed for fraud
a judgment awarding plaintiff mon-
ey damages and directing defendan1
to pay plaintiff support money for
child was void, as without the Is-
sues.— Stanley v. McKenzie, 240 P
103)3, 29 Ariz. 288.
Cancellation not sought
Where both parties to suit sough
construction and specific perform-
ance of contract, and neither at
tacked its validity nor sought its
cancellation, court erred In cancel
126
ng It.— Kentucky &. West Virginia
>ower Co. v. Gilllam, 276 S.W. 983,
210 Ky. 820.
Establishment and foreclosure o*
In suit to cancel purported deed
on ground it was In fact a mort-
gage, that part of judgment which
fixed a tax lien and foreclosed it
and foreclosed a vendor's Item, was
erroneous, where neither party
sought the fixing of tax lien or fore-
closure of tax lien and vendor's lien.
— Duncan v. Green, Tex.Civ.App.,
113 S.Wj2d 656, error dismissed,
62. Mo. — Massey-Harris Harvester
Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of
Kansas City, 48 S.W.2d 158, 226
Mo.App. 916.
Tex. — Street v. Cunningham, Civ.
App., 156 S.W.2d 541.
notice of dishonor
Judgment based on holding that
failure to give notice of dishonor of
checks was fatal to recovery was
properly reversed, where no plea
raised question of discharge by flail-
ure to give notice of dishonor. —
Comer v. Brown, Tex.Com.App., 283
S.W. 307.
63. Tex.— McClory v. Schneider,
Civ.App., 51 S.W.2d 738, error dis-
missed— Smyth v. Conner, Civ.
App., 280 S.W. 600— John Christ-
ensen & Co. v. McNeil, Civ.App.,
251 S.W. 351.
64. Ky.— City of Owingsville v. TJ1-
ery, 86 S.W.2d 706, 260 Ky. 792.
65. Tex. — Lewis v. Gamble, Civ.
App., 113 S.W.2d 659— Meador v.
Wagner, Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 794,
error dismissed.
66. R.L— Nelson v. Streeter, 13 A.
2d 256, 65 R.'I. 1*3.
Tex.— Long v. McCoy, Civ.App., 294
S.W. 6-33, affirmed McCoy v. Long,
Com.App., 15 -S.W.2d 234, rehear-
ing denied 17 S.W.2d 783.
Absence of interest in land
Where only issues before court
were existence of alleged indebted-
ness and whether quitclaim deed
was intended as mortgage, portion
of judgment adjudging that plaintiff
had no Interest whatever in land
was held void.— State ex rel. Shull
v. Moore, 27 P.2d 1048, 167 Okl. 28.
67. Mo. — Riley v. La 'Font, 174 S.W.
2d 857 — Brown v. Wilson, 155 S.W.
2d 176, 348 Mo. 658.
19 C.J. P 1209 note 20 Dc]-[e], p 1240
note 19 [a].
Improvements
Adjudication that, defendant to
ejectment is entitled to nothing for
improvements is erroneous, where
no such issue is made by pleadings.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 51
utors and administrators,68 fixtures,69 foreclosure,70
foreign judgments,71 forfeiture,™ gifts,™ guaran-
ties,74 injunctive relief,75 insurance,76 interplead-
er,77 leases or rents,78 notes,™ partition,80 partner-
ships,81 personal injuries,82 quo warrantors receiv-
— Lester v. Tyler, Mo., 69 S.W.2d
633.
68. Ky. — Stlmson's Ex'x v. Tharp,
144 S.W.2d 1031, 284 Ky. 389.
24 C.J. p 884 note 44 [a].
Personal or representative capacity
see supra subdivision a (2) of
this section.
69. Ky.— Tabor v. Tabor, 280 S.W.
1S4, 213 Ky. 312.
70. N.Y.— Brockport Nat. Bank v.
Webaco Oil Co., 12 N.T.S.2d 65-2,
257 App.Div. 68, reargument de-
nied 14 N.Y.S.2d 495, 257 App.Div.
1043.
N.C.-- Richardson v. Satterwhite, 150
$.E. 116, 197 N.C. 609.
Ohio.— Lebanon Production Credit
Ass'n v. Feldhaus, App., 34 N.E.2d
463.
Tex. — Smith v. Jaggers, Civ.App.. 16
S.W.2d 9ff9, error dismissed.
Vt — Freedley v. Edwin Shuttleworth
Co., 130 A. 691, 99 Vt. 25.
33 C.J. p 1139 note 52 [b] (1), [e]
— 42 C.J. p 142 notes 48, 53 [c],
[e].
Extent of interest foreclosed
In action to foreclose vendor's
lien where only evidence of defend-
ant's interest was in deed from
plaintiff to defendant, Judgment
foreclosing an interest less than de-
scribed in deed was error. — Smith v.
Totton, Civ.App., 98 S.W.2d 1019. af-
firmed Totton v. -Smith, 113 S.W.2d
517, 131 Tex. 219. •
TL Oal.— Morrow v. Morrow, 105 P.
2d 129, 40 Cal.App.2d 474.
7S. 111.— Penkala v. Tomczyk, 148
N.E. 64, 317 111. 356.
7a Mo.— Riney v. Riney, App., 117
S.W.2d 698. .
74. La.— Exchange Nat Bank of
Shreveport v. Holomon Bros., 123
So. 603, 168 La. 870.
75. Cal.— Sharp v. Big Jim Mines,
103 P.2d 430, 39 Cal.App.2d 435.
Idaho.— Boise Street Car Co. v. Van
Avery, 103 P.2d 1107, 61 Idaho 502.
Mich.— Ottney v. Taylor, 13 N.W.2d
280, 308 Mich. 252.
Mo— Finley v. -Smith, 178 S.W.2d
326, 552 Mo. 465— Fugel v. Becker,
2 S.W.2d 743.
Neb.— Hallgren v. Williams, 20 N.
W.2d 499.
Pa.— Ebur v. Alloy Metal Wire Co.,
155 A. 280, 304 Pa. 177.
Vacation of Judgment
In suit, to enjoin enforcement of
Judgment, court's attempt to vacate
Judgment was held nugatory, since
it was unauthorized by pleadings.—
Baria v. Taylor, 57 IS.W.2d 858.
Personal Judgment; order of »ale
In suit to restrain sale under trust
deed, judgment against mortgagor
personally and ordering sale was
held not warranted under pleadings.
— Farm *& Home Savings & Loan
Ass'n of Missouri v. Muhl, Tex.Civ.
App., 37 S.W.2d 516, error refused.
76. Ky. — London & Provincial Ma-
rine & Fire Ins. Co. of London,
England, v. Mullins. 95 «S.W.2d 588,
264 Ky. 780— Fidelity Mut. Life
Ins. Co. v. Hembree, 41 S.W.2d 649,
240 Ky. 97.
Mo.— Smith v. Smith, App., 192 S.
W.2d 691, followed in 192 S.W.2d
700.
N.J.~^Magliano v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 34 A.2d 296, 21 N.J.Misc.
394.
Tex. — Drane v. Jefferson Standard
Life Ins. Co., 161 S.W.2d 1057,
139 Tex 101— Home Ins. Co. v.
Scott, Civ-App., 152 S.W.2d 413,
error dismissed — Snyder N Local
Mut Life Ass'n, Group One, v. Le-
mond, Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 829,
error refused— National Aid Life
Ass'n v. Bailey, Civ.App., 54 S.W.
2d 206— Fidelity Union Fire Ins.
Co. v. Barnes, Civ.App., 293 S.W.
279.
Wis.— Schmidt v. La Salle Fire Ins.
Co. of New Orleans, 245 N.W. 702,
209 Wis. 576.
33 C.J. P 1139 note 52 [b] (3), P
1168 note 28 [c]— 57 C.J. P 656
note 13.
Disability
Where an accident policy provides
indemnity for partial and total dis-
ability, if insured sues for the in-
demnity payable for a total disabil-
ity he cannot, in the same action,
recover indemnity for a partial disa-
bility which succeeded his total dis-
ability.— Rayburn v. Pennsylvania
Casualty Co., 54 S.E. 283, 1-41 N.C.
425.
Pa.— Normile v. Martell, 96 Pa.Super.
139.
Tex. — Wafford v. Branch, Com.App.»
267 S.W. 260 — Gulf Refining Co. T.
Smith, Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 155.
Fraud
Where issue of fraud was irrele-
vant because not pleaded, finding
thereon for insurer sued for pre-
miums would not support Judgment
for insurer. — American Nat Ins. Co.
v. Villegas, Tex.Civ.App., 32 S.W.2d
1109.
77, Cal.— Van Orden v. Golden West
Credit & Adjustment Co., 9 P.2d
572, 122 CaLApp. 132.
78. Ky.— Key v. Hays, 166 S.W.2d
850, 292 Ky. 423.
La.— Harper v. Sid iSimmons Drill-
ing Co., 114 So. 647, 164 La. 767.
H-e.— Bemis v. Bradley, 133 A. 593,
126 Me. 462, 69 A.L.R. 1399.
Mo.— Dreckshfcge v. Dreckshage, 176
S.W.2d 7, 352 Mo. 78— McCaskey
v. Duffley, 78 S.W.2d 141, 229 Mo.
App. 289.
N'T.— Kilmer Park Const Co. v.
Lehrer, 270 N.Y.S. 156, 150 Misc.
673.
127
In action against lessor and les-
see for damages to nearby property,
lessor was not entitled to Judgment
over against lessee on ground that
lease contained an indemnification
clause in its favor, where the plead-
ings raised no such issue. — Boyle v.
Pennsylvania R. Co., 31 A.2d 89. 34*
Pa. 602.
79. Ky. — Beaver Petroleum Corpo-
ration v. ,Whitney, 278 S.W. 565,
212 Ky. 222.
La.— W. J. & C. Sherrouse v. Phe-
nix, 128 So. 536, 14 La.App. 629.
Tex. — Chastain v. Gilbert, Civ.App.,
145 iS.W.2d 938 — Butler v. Price,
Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 301— Metropo-
lis Co. v. Texas Publication House,
Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d 403— Stack v.
Ellis, Civ.App., 2-91 S.W. 919—
Standard Motor Co. v. Wittman,
Civ.App., 271 S.W. 186— Blanken-
beckler v. Kuykendall, Civ.App.,
256 S.W. 323.
Material alteration
Where notes were rendered voia
by material alteration by payee,
Judgment in amount of notes was
held erroneous, since there was no-
pleading or claim based on original
obligation evidenced by the notes. —
Jones v. Jones, 71 S.W.2d 999, 25-4
Ky. 475.
&, Qa. — Hatton v. Johnson, 121 S»
E. 404, 157 Ga. 313.
Tex.— Johnson v. Bussey. Civ.App...
95 S.W.2d 990, error refused — Se-
curity Realty & Development Co-
v. Jenkins, Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 999-
— Vanlandingham v. Terry, Clw
.App., 293 S.W. 252.
47 C.J. p 430 note 69.
31. Mo.— McCrosky V. Burnhamr
App., 282 S.W. 158.
Personal Judgment against man-
ager of partnership was unauthor-
ized, where complaint did not allege
that he was a partner or that he had
any interest in business and asked,
for no relief against him except
that any interest he might have-
should be foreclosed. — State ex rel-
Yeatch v. Franklin, 98'CP.2d 724. 163
Or. 500.
82. Tex.— St. Louis, B. & M. Ry-
Co. v. (Price. Civ.App., 244 S.W-
642, affirmed, ConLApp., 269 -S.W-
422. .
83. Corporate nature of body
A Judgment in QUO warranto can-
not be sustained where it is againat
respondents as officers of an unin-
§51
JUDGMENTS.
crs,84 recovery of purchase price of property,85 re-
plevin,86 rescission,87 services rendered,88 specific
performance,89 statutory penalties,90 taxes or as-
sessments,91 trespass,92 trusts,98 wages and penal-
ties,94 workmen's compensation,96 and other mat-
ters.9«
§ 52.
49 C.J.S,
Nature and Form of Action
In general the Judgment is limited by the nature of
the action; but In code states, where the common- 1 aw
forms of pleading have been abolished, the form or
name of the action does not control the relief which may
be granted.
In general the scope of the judgment is limited
by the nature or character of the action.9? At
corporated body and the issue
raised by the pleadings is whether
the relators are entitled to the offl
ces in an incorporated body which
are claimed and held by respondents
— Commonwealth v. Grim, 9*9 A. 166
255 Pa. 40.
84. Tex. — Commercial Standard Ins
Co. v. Moeller. Civ.App., 78 S.W
2d 2 83.
85. Cal.— -Young v. !Lial, 17 P.2d
170, 128 Cal.App. 246.
Ga:— Whitten v. McMillan, 128 S.B
211, 34 €tauApp. 33.
La. — Stafford v. Tolmas Realty Co.
App., 1-46 So. 61 — Jackson v. Har-
ris, 1S6 So. 166, 18 La.App. 484,
reinstated 137 60. 655, 18 La.App,
484.
Tex. — Bancroft v. Brown, Civ.App,
285 fl.W. 206— Holloway v. Miller,
Civ.App., 272 S.W. 562.
Return of property
In an action for the balance due
on the purchase price of property in
which defendant asks only for dam-
ages, or for a return of payments
made, and in which the only issue
is whether there should be a money
Judgment in favor of one party
against the other, a money Judgment
for defendant coupled with an ad-
judication that the property be re-
turned to plaintiff is improper.-
Cresci v. Gandy, 124 A, 68, 99 N.J.
Law 417 — Union Garage Co. v. Wil-
ner, 120 A. 4, 98 N.J.Law 441.
Balance due seller
In seller's action for purchase
price, verdict for buyer on his coun-
terclaim for fraud was unwarranted,
where, if utmost amount shown as
damages were subtracted from price
remaining unpaid, there would still
be a remainder in seller's favor. —
Gross v. Reiners, 124 A. 811, 100
Conti. 732.
86. Tenn.— Sartain v. Dixie Coal &
Iron Co., 266 S.W. 313, 150 Tenn.
633.
33 C.J. p 1139 note 52 [b] (2), (4).
87. Tex. — Bailey v. Mann, Civ.App.,
248 S.W. 469.
88. Tex.— Burnell v. -Schmidt, Civ.
App., 104 S.W.2d 551— Barnhart
Mercantile Co. v. Bengal, Civ. App.,
77 S.W.2d 295.
89. La. — Derbes v. Rogers, 110 So.
84, 162 La. 49.
90. Tex. — Jennings Y« Texas Farm
Mortgage Co., 80 S.W.2d 931, 124
Tex. 593— Gibson T. Hicks, Civ.
A.pp., 47 S.W.2d 691, error refused
— National Casualty Co. v. Ma-
honey, Civ.App., 296 S.W. 335.
91. TLS3. — Degener v. Anderson, C.C.
A.N.Y., 77 F.2d 85-9.
La. — State ex rel. Porterie v. Gulf,
Mobile & Northern R. Co., -184 So.
711, 191 La. 163.
Mo. — State ex rel. Kansas City v.
School Dist. of Kansas City, 62
•S.W.2d 813, £3(3 Mo. 288.
Tex — Ostrom v. State, Civ.App., 88
S.W.2d 1084.
92. La. — Bruning v. City of New
Orleans, 115 So. 733, 165 La. 511.
Tex. — Dalton v. Davis, Com.App., 1
S.W.2d -571 — Martin v. Grogan-
Cochran Lumber Co., Civ. App., 176
S.W.2d 780— First State Bank in
Caldwell v. Stubbs, Civ.App., 48 S.
W.2d 446.
93. Cal. — Juranek v. Juranek, 84 P.
2d 195, 29 Cal.App.2d 276.
Conn. — Waterbury Trust Co. v. Por-
ter, 38 A.2d 598, 131 Conn. 206—
Zitkov v. Gorsky, 137 A. 751, 106
Conn. 287.
S.D. — Colteaux v. First Trust & Sav-
ings Bank, 218 N.W. 151, 52 S.D.
443.
Tex. — Norris y. •Stoneham, Civ.App.,
46 S.W.2d S63.
94« Kan. — Southern Kansas Stage
Lines Co. v. Webb, 41 P.2d 1025,
141 Kan. '476.
95. La. — Prudhome'v. Cedar Grove
Refining Co., App., 157 So. 158.
98. Ariz.— Price v. Sunfleld, 112 P.
2d 210, 57 Ariz. 142.
Ark, — Hunt v. Road Improvement
Dist. No. 12 of Woodruff County,
270 S.W. 961, 168 Ark. 266.
Colo. — Buchhalter v. Myers, 276 (P.
972, 85 Colo. 419.
Ga.— Ramey v. McCoy. 179 <3.E. 730,
DL80 Ga. 521.
111.— Kohler v. Kohler, 61 N.E.2d
687, 326 001. 105— Baxter v. Conti-
nental Illinois Nat. Bank & Trust
Co. of Chicago, 26 N.E.2d 179, 304
IlLApp. 117.
Kan. — Old (Peoples Home of Illinois
Conference of Methodist Episcopal
Church, Quincy, 111., v. Miltner, 89
P.2d 874, 149 Kan. 847.
Ky.— Braun v. ©naith, 178 S.W.2d
940, 297 Ky. 162— Key v. Hays,
166 e.W.2d 8*0, 292 Ky. 423—
Jameson v. Jameson, 133 S.W.2d
923, 280 Ky. 654— Berry v. Riess,
121 S.W.2d 942, 276 Ky. 114-<!hes-
apeake & O. Ry. Co. v. City of
Olive ECiU, 21 S.W.2d 127, 231 Ky. I
128
65— Rex Red Ash Coal Co. T.
Powers, 290 S.W. HO 61, 218 Ky. 93.
Mo. — Verdon v. Silvara, 274 S.W. 79,
308 Mo. 607,
N.T.— Claris v. Richards, 183 N.R
904, 260 N.T. 419.
Or. — City of (Portland v. Hurst, 28
P.2d 217, ,145 Or. 415— Robinson
v. Oregon City Sand & Gravel Co.,
20 OE>2d 1073, 143 Or. 177.
S.C.— Griggs v. Griggs, 19 S.B.2d
477, 199 S.C. 295.
S.D.— Hunt v. Dolphin, 223 N.W. 84,
54 3.D. 261.
Tex. — Neyland v. Brown, 170 S.W.Sd
207, 141 Tex. 253, modified on oth-
er grounds 172 S.W.2d 89, 141 Tex.
253 — Saner- Whit eman Lumber Co.
v. Texas & N. O. Ry. Co., Com.
App., 288 S.W. (127, rehearing de-
nied 288 S.W. 1068— Spradlin v.
Gibbs, Civ.App., 159 S.W.2d 246 —
International Order of Twelve
Knights and Daughters of Tabor
v. Fridia, Civ.App., 91 S.W.2d 404
— W. L. Moody Cotton Co. v. IPol-
ley, Civ.App., 66 S.W.2d 807— Card-
er v. Knippa Mercantile Co., Civ.
App., 1 S.W.2d 462, error dismiss-
ed—San Antonio Southern Ry. Co.
v. Burd, Civ.App., 246 -S.W. 1060,
modified on other grounds Burd
v. San Antonio Southern R. Co.,
Com.App., 261 S.W. 1021.
33 C.J. p 1139 note 52 [b], p 1151
note 17 [b], [c], 19 [a], p 1152
note 21 [a], [c].
97. Ky. — Commonwealth v. Kentuc-
ky Jockey Club, 58 S.W.Sd 987,
238 Ky. 7-39.
Tex.— Forman v. Barroti, Civ.App.,
120 S.W.2d 827, error refused.
Tort or contract see infra $ 5-3.
In rein or in. personam
An action in rem will not sup-
port a judgment in personam.
N.T.— Sturcke v. Link, 26 N.T.S.2d
7-48, 176 Misc. 93.
S.C. — Parker Peanut Co. v. Felder,
34 S.E.2d 488, 207 S.C. 63.
Aflsnmpsit; moneys had and received
Where an action in assumpsit
would not lie, judgment for plaintiff
could not be supported by count for
moneys had and received.-— Schweit-
zer v. Bank of America N. T. & S, A.,
109 P.2d 441, 42 Cal.App.2d 636.
Goods sold and delivered* indebita-
tos assunpsit
The fact that the declaration
sought to recover for goods sold and
delivered did not prevent recovery
in indebitatus assumpsit, where it
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 53
common law a judgment must be warranted by the
form of the action.98 Thus it has been held that a
judgment in debt is erroneous where the declara-
tion is in assumpsit" or in case,1 or in replevin;2
and similarly that, where the declaration is in debt,
a judgment in assumpsit8 or in damages4 is er-
roneous; but, by the practice of the majority of
states, a judgment in damages on a declaration in
debt will be good, the objection being merely techni-
cal,5 and, vice versa, a judgment entered in debt
instead of in damages is good.6 On a declaration in
trespass, a recovery in case has been permitted.7
In code states, the common-law forms of plead-
ing having been abolished, it is the duty of the
courts to give such judgment as the pleadings and
evidence warrant, without regard to the form or
name of the action.8
§ 53. Grounds of Action or Defense
As a general rule, a Judgment for a plaintiff must
be based on the cause of action which he has alleged,
and not on some theory Inconsistent with, or totally dif-
ferent from, that suggested in his pleading. Similarly,
a defendant ordinarily must prevail according to the case
made by his answer.
Relief to, or a recovery by, plaintiff must be
based on, and justified by, facts alleged in his plead-
ing.9 Unless defendant, by his silence or conduct,
has acquiesced in the trial of the new and different
cause of action on which the judgment proceeded,
as discussed supra § 50, a plaintiff ordinarily must
recover, if at all, on the cause of action which he
has alleged, and a judgment in his favor must be
based on the theory or ground of liability on which
in his pleadings he has placed his right to recover.10
also alleged that plaintiff paid out
money at defendant's request, which
was supported by the evidence intro-
duced.—Campbell v. Willis, 290 F.
271, 53 AppJXC. 296.
98. Minn.-— GervaJs v. Powers. 1
Minn. 45.
33 C.J. p 1155 note 48.
99. Ark.— Jones v. Robinson, 8 Ark.
484.
33 C.J. p 1155 note 49.
1. Ky. — Lynch v. Freeland, Ky.
Dec. 269.
2. R.I.— Warren v. Letter, 52 A. 76.
24 R.I. {36.
33 'C.J. p 1155 note 51.
3. Colo. — Anderson v. Sloan, 1 Colo.
484.
33 C.J. p 1155 note 52.
4. 111.— Ross v. Taylor, 68 111. 215.
33 C.J. p 1155 note 53.
5. Vt.— Carver v. Adams, 40 Vt. 552.
33 C.J. p 1156 note 54.
6. Ala.— iPerdue v. Burnett, Minor p
138.
Ky.— Jenkins v. Teates, 2 J.J.Marsh.
48.
7. Pa.— Miller v. Lehigh County. 5
Pa.Dist. 588.
33 C.J. p 1156 note 56.
8. U.S. — Lumbermen's Trust Co. v.
Town of Ryegate, C.OA.Mont., 61
F.2d 14.
Conn.— Makusevich v. Gotta, 13-9 A.
780, 107 Conn. 207.
Or.— Weith v. Klein, 2SS P. 902, 136
Or. 201.
Tex. — Dittmar v. Alamo Nat Co., 118
S.W.2d 298, 132 Tex. 44.
33 C.J. p 1156 note 57.
9. Ariz.— White v. Hamilton, 299 P.
124, 38 Ariz. 256— City of Yuma v.
English, 226 P. 531, 26 Ariz. 438.
Cal. — Bridge v. New Amsterdahi
Casualty Co., 19 'P.2d 76, 129
Cal.App, 35-5— Westervelt v. Mc-
Cullough, 228 P. 734, 68 CaLApp.
198— Imperial Water Co. No. 4 v
49 C. XS.-9
Meserve, 217 IP. 553, 62 CaI.App. j
603.
Conn.— Masterton v. Lenox Realty
Co., 15 A.2d 11, 127 Conn. 25—
Frosch v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
199 A* 646, 124 Conn. 300— <Maz-
ziottl v. Di Martino, 130 A. 844,
103 Conn. 491.
Ga. — Mendel v. Converse & Co., 118
S.E. 586, 30 Ga,App. 5*49.
Ind.— Indianapolis Real Estate
Board v. Willson, 187 N.E. 400, $8
Ind. App. 72.
Minn.— Hurr v. Davis, 198 N.W. 943,
155 Minn. 456, rehearing denied
194 N.W. 379, 155 Minn. 456, cer-
tiorari denied 44 S.Ct 36, 263 U.S.
709, 68 L.Ed.. 518, and error dis-
missed 45 S.Ct 227, 267 U.S. 572,
69 L.Ed. 794.
Mo. — Bragg v. Specialty Shoe (Ma-
chinery Co., 84 <S.W.2d 184, 225
Mo.App. 902.
Mont.— Kramlich v. Tullock, 277 P.
411, 84 Mont. 601.
N.Y.— Garflnkel & Steinberg Corpo-
ration v. Bandlers Sutphin, Inc.,
299 N.Y.-S. 536, 252 App.Div. 858
— Blackwell v. Glidden Co., 203
N.Y.S. 380, 208 App.Div. 317, af-
firmed 147 NJB. 188, 239 N.T. 5'45
— MacLeold v. Miller, 201 N.Y.S.
108.
N.C.— Barron v. Cain, 4 S.E.2d 618,
216 N.C. 282.
Tenn. — Polk v. Chattanooga Wagon
& Body Co., 2 Tenn.App. 415.
Tex.— Jackson v. Cloer, Civ. App., 9$
S.W.2d 353 — Smoot & Smoot v.
Nelson, Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d 578—
Hall v. First Nat Bank, Civ.App.,
252 S.W. 328, modified on other
grounds 254 S.W. 522.
Utah. — Stevens & Wallis v. Golden
Porphyry Mines Co., 18 P.24 303,
81 Utah 414.
33 O.J. P 1156 note 60, p 1157 note
61.
Cause or theory asserted in reply
(1) Ordinarily a judgment may
129
not be rendered on a cause of action
asserted in a reply.
Ky. — Hacker v. Clay County, 165 S.
W.2d 172, 291 Ky. 614.
Mo.— Regal Realty & Investment Co.
v. Gallagher, 188 S.W. 151.
33 C.J. p 1156 note 60 [d].
(2) Where plaintiff in his com- •
plaint sought recovery of land on
the theory that a deed to him was an
absolute .conveyance, and defendant
In his answer claimed that the deed
was in fact a mortgage, and, where
plaintiff in his reply sought foreclo-
sure' if the deed were found to be a
mortgage, it was held that a judg-
ment directing foreclosure was Jus-,
tified where the court found that the
deed was a mortgage. — Church v.
Brown, 272 P. 511, 150 Wash. 173.
New complaint
If court permits filing of new com-
plaint to conform to- proof, judgment
should relate to new pleading. — Bak-
ersfield Sandstone Brick Co. v. Cas-
cade Oil Co., 23 P.2d 423, 132 CaL
App. 633.
liability as indorser
Defendants could not be held as
indorsers on note where pleading
showed that action was not brought
on note. — Kern v. Henry, 31 P.2d 454,
138 CaLApp. 46.
10. U.S.— State Street Trust Co. v.
U. S., D.C.Mass., 37 F.Supp. 846.
affirmed, C.C.A., U. S. v. State
Street Trust Co., 124 !F.2d 948.
Ala. — Chandler v. Price, 15 So.M 462,
244 Ala. 667.
Ariz. — Jones v. Stanley, 233 P. 698,
27 Ariz. 381.
HI. — Wood v. Wood, App., -64 N.E.2d
385-^First Trust Joint Stock Land
Bank of Chicago v. Cutler, 12 N.E.
' 2d 705, 293 IlLApp. 354 — Streeter
y. .Humrichouse, 261 IlLApp. 556.
Ind. — City of Muncie v. Horlacher,
53 N.B.3d 631, 222 Ind.. 302.
La.— Hope v. Madison, 183 So. 711,
192 (La. 59$,
§ 53
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Plaintiff cannot set up one cause of action in his
complaint and recover on proof of another and a
different cause of action; nor can he recover on
some theory not suggested in his declaration or com-
plaint.11 It is particularly true that recovery on
Me. — Morrison v. Union Park Ass'n,
149 A. 804, 129 Me. S8.
Minn. — Consumers' Grain Qo. v. Wm.
Lindeke Roller Mills, 190 N.W. 65,
153 Minn. 231.
Mo.— Pinet v. Pinet, App., 191 S.W.Sd
362 — Palmer v. Marshall, App., 2-4
S.W.2d 229.
N.Y. — Jno. Dunlop's "Sons v. Alpren,
212 N.Y.S. 307, 214 App.Div. 339—
Varda v. Lynch, 19-6 N.Y.S. 641,
203 App.Div. 53*9 — -Carroll v. Dryo-
lin Corporation, 45 N.Y.S.2d 77, 182
Misc. 260 — Rochester Poster Adv.
Co. T. Sm'lthers, 224 N.Y.'S. 711,
130 Misc. 676, reversed on other
grounds 231 N.Y.S. 315, 2'24 App.
Div. 435— Siegler v. Bischof, 53 N.
Y.S.2d 657— Kirkpatrick Home for
Childless Women v. Kenyon, 196
N.Y.S. 475, affirmed 199 N.Y.S. '851,
206 App.Div. 728.
N.C.— Balentine v. Gill, 11 S.E.2d 456,
218 N.C. 496— Wallace v. Wallace,
188 S.B. 96. 210 N.C. 656.
Ohio. — Thompson v. Thompson, 181
N.E. 272, 42 Ohio App. 164.
Pa.— In re Miller, Com.Pl., 32 Del.
'Co. 'Se*.
Tex. — Nu-Enamel Paint Co. of Texas
v. Culmore, Civ.App., T2 S.W.2d
390 — Tinsley v. Metzler, Civ. App.,
44 S.W.2d 820, error dismissed —
Gibbs v. Corbett, Civ.App., 292 S.
W. 260 — Superior Fire Ins. Co. v.
C. S. Lee Grain & Elevator Co.,
Civ.App., 261 S.W. 212— Trott v.
Flato, Civ.App., 244 S.W. 1085.
33 C.J. p 1157 note 62, p 1158 note
66, p 1159 note 67.
«
Estoppel
Where a complaint failed to allege
facts constituting1 an estoppel, a
Judgment on that ground cannot "be
upheld, whether a cause of action
could or could not have been main-
tained, had it been pleaded. — Gibral-
tar Realty Co. v. Security Trust Co.,
1.36 NiE. 636, 192 Ind. 502.
Pailnre of consideration,
In action by purchaser for rescis-
sion of contract, relief could not be
granted for failure of consideration
where such failure was not pleaded.
— Clancy v. Becker-Arbuckle-Wright
Corporation, 29 P.2d 868, 137 Cal.
App. 43.
Interest in land
Petition alleging an agreement to
purchase land and divide profits on
resale, but not alleging that plain-
tiff was to have any interest in the
land, would not support a judgment
for a portion of the land still un-
sold.— Carothers v. Creighton, Tex.
Civ.App., 101 S.W.Sd 631.
11. U.S. — Storm Waterproofing Cor-
poration v. Li. Sonneborn Sons, D.
CDel., 28 F.2d 115— Durabilt Steel
iLocker Co. v. Berger Mfg. Co., D.
O.0hio, 21 F.2d 139.
Colo. — Rio Grande Fuel Co. v. Col-
orado Central Power Co., 63 P.
2d 470, 99 Colo. 395.
Conn. — Conzelman v. City of Bristol,
188 A. -659, 122 Conn. 218.
Fla. — Gruber v. Cobey, 12 So.2d 461,
152 Fla. 591— Foye Tie & Timber
Co. v. Jackson, 97 So. 517, '86 Fla.
97.
Ga. — Southern Lumber Co. v. Ed-
wards, 117 S.E. 252, 30 Ga.App.
223.
111. — Jacksonville Hotel Bldg. Corpo-
ration v. Dunlap Hotel Co., 264 111,
App. 279, modified on other
grounds 183 N.E. 397, 550 111. 451.
Ind. — Gibraltar Realty Co. v. Se-
curity Trust Co., 136 N.E. 636, 192
Ind. '502 — Denney v. Peters, 10 N.
E.2d 7-54, 104 Ind.App. 504— Nes-
bitt v. Miller, 188 N.E. 702, 98 Ind.
App. 195.
Kan. — Harveyville State Bank v. Lee,
234 P. 982, 118 Kan. 269.
Ky.— Smith v. Collins, '251 S.W. 979,
199 Ky. T70.
Me. — Page v. Bourgon, 22 A.2d 577,
138 Me. 113.
Mo.— Smith v. Thompson, 161 'S.W.
2d 232, 349 Mo. 396— State ex rel.
Kennedy v. Remmers, 101 S.W.2d
70, 540 Mo. 126 — Zamora v. Wood-
men of the World Life Ins. Soc.,
App., 157 S.W.2d 601 — Wasson v.
Dow/ App., 251 S.W. 69.
Mont. — Outlook Farmers' Elevator
Co. v. American 'Surety Co. of New
York, 223 P. 905, 70 Mont. «.
N.Y. — Kew Gardens Corporation v.
Ciro's Plaza, 26 N.Y.S.2d 553, 2-61
App.Div. 5*76 — Douglass v. Wolcott
Storage & Ice Co., 295 N.Y.S. 675,
251 App.Div. 79 — Berger v. Eichler,
207 N.Y.S. 147, 211 App.Div. 479—
Security Bank of New York v.
Finkelstein, 145 N.Y.S. 5, 160 App.
Div. 315, affirmed 112 N.B. 1076,
217 N.Y. 707— Bernstein v. East
167th Street Corporation, 293 N.
Y.S. 109, 161 Misc. 836?— Rosen-
blum v. Pas Holding Corporation,
28 N.Y.S.2d '589.
Or. — McCann v. Oregon Scenic Trips
Co., 209 P. 483, 105 Or. 213, fol-
lowed in 'Smith v. Oregon Scenic
Trips Co., 209 P. 486, 10'5 Or, 222.
S.D. — Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v.
Frick, 245 N.W. 921, -61 S.D. 9.
Tex. — Johnson Aircrafts v. Wilborn,
Civ.App., 190 S.W.2d 426— City of
Temple v. Mitchell, Civ.App., 180
S.W.2d 959— City State Bank in
Wellington v. Wellington Inde-
pendent School Diet, Civ.App., 173
S.W.2d 738, affirmed 178 S.W.2d
114, 142 Tex. 344— Chamblin v.
Webb, Civ.App., 155 S.W.2d 676—
Strack v. Strong, Ctv.App., 114 S.
130
W.2d 313, error dismissed — Stuard
v. Vick, Civ.App., 9 S.W.2d 494,
error dismissed — Rockhold v.
Lucky Tiger Oil Co., Civ.App., 4
S.W.2d 1046, error dismissed —
American Law Book Co. v. Dykes,
Civ.App., 4 S.W.2d 630— First State
Bank of Wortham v. Bland, Civ.
App., 291 S.W. 650— C. A. Bryant
Co. v. Hamlin Independent School
Dist., Civ.App., 274 S.W. 266.
Wis. — Lee v. Pauly Motor Truck Co.,
190 N.W. '819, 179 Wis. 139.
33 C.J. p 1157 note 62, p 1159 note 67.
Public or private way
In a suit brought on the theory of
the existence of a private way, judg-
ment cannot be based on the theory
that the road or way was a public
one.
Cal.— Hare v. Craig, 276 P. 336, 206
Cal. 753.
Utah. — Thornley Land & Livestock
Co. v. Morgan Bros. Land & Live-
stock Cd, 17 P.2d '826, 81 Utah 817.
Contract as oral or written
(1) Judgment on wholly written
contract has no support in pleadings
declaring on partly written contract.
— C. A. Bryant Co. v. Hamlin Inde-
pendent School Dist., Civ.App., IS S.
W.2d 750, certified questions an-
swered 14 S.W.2d 53, 118 Tex. 255.
(2) In suit to recover for inter-
ference with contract, where plain-
tiff alleged a contract in writing,
plaintiff was not entitled to relief
for interference with an oral con-
tract collateral to written contract. —
Tompkins v. Sullivan, 48 N.E.2d 15,
313 Mass. 459.
Negligence; trespass
(1) Where the allegations and
trial are based exclusively on the
theory of negligence, recovery on a
ground other than negligence is not
permissible.
Conn. — Epstein v. City of New Ha-
ven, 132 A. 467, 104 Conn. 283.
N.Y. — Rock v. Radice Electric Co.,
223 N.Y.S. 659, 131 Misc. 51.
33 C.J. p 1158 note 66 [a] (1), (5),
C7), p 1159 note 67 [a] (2).
(2) A judgment based on negli-
gence is not supported by allega-
tions solely of trespass.
Mo.— Mawson v. Vess Beverage Co.,
App., 173 S.W.-2d 606.
Tex. — Michels v. Crouch, Civ.App.,
122 S.W.2d '211.
53 C.J. p 1159 note 67 [a] (10), (11).
ISTature of tenancy
Where plaintiffs alleged and trial
proceeded on theory that defendants
were hold-over tenants for one year,
it was error to grant judgment for
plaintiffs on ground that tenancy
was from month to month and that
proper notice of intention to quit
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
53
an inconsistent theory will not be permitted.12 In
some jurisdictions, however, a party is entitled to
any relief appropriate to the facts alleged and
proved, irrespective of the theory on which they
may be alleged j1* and the fact that a party has
pleaded an erroneous theory does not bar him from
recovering if the facts he has pleaded support a
proper theory of recovery.**
Proof of a different cause of action from that al-
leged in the declaration or 'complaint amounts to a
failure of proof, and is not a mere variance;15
but, where the substantial facts creating the liabili-
ty are alleged and proved, a recovery may be had,
although they are alleged inaccurately in detail, be-
cause this does not amount to a change of theory
or a recovery on grounds not alleged.16 Where re-
covery is sought on several grounds, a judgment
supported by one of the grounds is proper notwith-
standing the failure to establish the other grounds
of liability;17 but in such case the judgment must
be supported by all the elements of at least one of
the different grounds of recovery.18
Ordinarily defendant must prevail, if at all, ac-
cording to the case made by his answer ;19 but this
had not been given. — McAuley v.
Cresci, 19 N.Y.S.2d 221.
Recovery wider different statutory
provision,
(1) Plaintiff cannot sue on one
statute and sustain verdict Justifi-
able only on different statute. — Bat-
terton v. Pima County, 271 P. 720,
34 Ariz. 347.
(2) However, although facts
proved did not make out breach of
warranty under subdivision of stat-
ute on which plaintiff relied, but
made out breach of warranty under
another subdivision, plaintiff was
held entitled to judgment — Ryan v.
Progressive-Grocery Stores, 175 N.E.
105. 255 N.T. 3'88, 74 A.L.R. 339.
Retention of property
Buyer's complaint to recover price
of property after rescission for
breach .of warranty and offer to re-
turn did not authorize judgment
based on breach of warranty per-
mitting buyer to keep the property.
— Schmelzer v. Winegar, 216 N.Y.S.
507, 217 App.Div. 194.
12. Ark. — H. V. Beasley Music Co.
v. Cash, 262 S.W. 656, 164 Ark.
572.
Colo. — Cattell v. Denver State Bank,
225 P. 271, 75 Colo. 150.
N.Y.— Lunger v. New York Life Ins.
Co., 225 N.Y.S. 730, 131 Misc. 42.
33 C.J. p 1160 note 68.
Affirmance of contract
Where purchaser elected to affirm
contract and sued for damages for
breach, the court was without au-
thority to render judgment for can-
cellation of deed and a return of the
purchase price. — Freeman v. Ander-
son, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 1081.
Rescission; fraud
Decree for rescission of sale of
stock was unauthorized where pur-
chaser sued for damages for fraud.
— Bondurant v. Raven CJoal Co., Mo.
App., 25 S.W.2d 566.
Property as community or separate
Judgment for plaintiff on finding
that property awarded her was sep-
arate property required reversal,
where her pleadings alleged that it
was community property. — Bray v.
Bray, Tex.Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 625.
13L CaL — Estrin v. Superior Court
in and for Sacramento County, 96
P.2d 340, 14 Cal.2d 670— Lucas v.
Assodacao Protectora Uniao Mad-
eirense Do Estado Da California,
143 P.2d 53, 61 Cal.App.2d 344—
Bank of America Nat Trust &
Savings Ass'n v. Casady, 59 P.2d
444, 15 Cal.App.2d 163— Lacey v.
McConnell, 48 P.2d 161, 9 Cal.App.
2d 6.
Accounting1
If plaintiff has a cause of action
of which court has jurisdiction, and
accounting is necessary to determine
his rights, accounting will be or-
dered " regardless of erroneous legal
theory on which the action is based.
— Nelson v. Abraham, CaLApp., 162
P.2d 833.
14. Cal.— Mannon v. Pesula, 139 P.
2d 336, 59 Cal.App.2d 597.
15» Wash. — McLachlan v. Gordon,
150 P. 441, 86 Wash. 282.
33 C.J. P 1158 note 64.
10. Va. — Lawson v. Conoway, 1-6 S.
E. 564, 37 W.Va, 159/18 L.R.A. G27,
35 Am.S.R. 17.
33 C.J. p 1160 note 69.
Actions on notes
(1) Judgment for plaintiff was
not erroneous on ground that plain-
tiff declared on promissory note £.nd
proved defendant Indebted on bills
of exchange. — ^tna Inv. Corporation
v. Barnes, Mo.App., 52 S.W.2d 221.
(2) Where complaint was based
on note given for money loaned, con-
tention that judgment was entered
for money loaned, and hence was im-
proper, was without merit. — Casset-
ta v. Bairaa, 288 P. 330, 106 CaLApp.
196.
17. Ala. — Robinson v. Solomon Bros.
Co., 155 So. 553, 229 Ala. 137.
Ind. — American Carloading Corpora-
tion v. Gary Trust & Savings
Bank, 25 N.E.2d 777, 216 Ind. 649.
y.— Peck v. Trail, 65 S.W.2d 83, 2-51
Ky. 377.
Wis. — Krier Preserving Co. v. West
Bend Heating & Lighting Co., 225
N.W. 200, 198 Wis. 595.
18. Tex.— West Texas Utilities Co.
131
v. Dunlap, Civ.App., 175 S.W.2d
749.
19. U.S. — El Dorado Terminal Co. v.
General American Tank Car Cor-
poration, C.C.A.Cal., 104 P.2d 903,
reversed on other grounds 60 S.Ct
325, 308 U.S. 422, 84 L.Ed. 361, re-
hearing denied 60 S.Ct 4-65, 309
U.S. 694, 84 L.Ed. 1035.
CaL— -Brown v. Sweet, 272 P. 614, 95
CaLApp. 117.
Ga. — Alliance Ins. Co. v. Williamson,
137 S.E. 277, 36 Ga.App. 497—
Stewart v. Hardin, 101 S.E. 716, 24
Ga.App. 611.
111. — Rosenthal v. Board of Educa-
tion of City of Chicago, 110 N.E.
579, 270 111. 380— Thulin v. Ander-
son, 154 Ill.App. 41.
Iowa. — Hornish v. Overton, 221 N.W.
483, 206 Iowa 780.
La. — Homes v. James Buckley & Co.,
116 So. 218, 165 La. 874.
Mass. — Shattuck v. Wood Memorial
Home, 66 .N.E.2d 568— Pollard v.
Ketterer, 108 N.B. 1086, 221 Mass.
317.
Mo.— Lebrecht v. New State Bank,
Woodward, OkL, 205 S.W. 273, 199
Mo.App. -642— White v. United
Brothers and Sisters of Mysteri-
ous Ten, App., 180 S.W. 406.
N.Y.— Marshall v. Sackett & Wil-
helms Co., 151 N.Y.S. 1045, 166
App.Div. 141— Continental Bank &
Trust Co. of New York v. Good-
ner, 49 N.Y.S.2d 747 — Junco v. La
Cabana, Inc., 20 N.Y.S.2S 781, af-
firmed 25 N.Y.S.2d 779, 261 App.
Div. 803.
Or.— Wolf v. Hougham, 12*5 P. 801,
62 Or. 264.
Pa. — Gliwa v. U. S. Steel Corpora-
tion, 185 A. $84, 322 Pa. 225, cer-
tiorari denied 57 S.Ct 117, 299
U.S. 593, 81 L.Ed. 437— McCormick
v. Harris, 196 A. 885, 130 Pa.Super.
175.
Tex. — Dashiel v. Lott, Com.App., 243
S.W. 1072— Ohastain v. Gilbert,
Civ.App., 145 S.W.Sd 938— Wardy
v. Casner, Civ.App., 108 S.W.2d 772,~
error dismissed— Sproles v. Rosen,
Civ.App., 47 S.W.2d 331, affirmed 84
S.W.2d 1001, 126 Tex. 51— Bennett
V. Giles, Civ.App.f 12 S.W.2d 843—
§ 53
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
is not unqualifiedly true,20 and, where the burden of
proof is on plaintiff, defendant is entitled to take
advantage of a failure of proof, regardless of the
pleadings.21
Tort or contract. A pleading sounding in tort
will not support a judgment based on a contract,22
and conversely, under a pleading on a caiise of ac-
tion sounding in contract, a recovery as for a tort
is erroneous.2* it has been held that these rules
have not been changed by code provisions;24 but
it has also been held that, under statutes abolish-
ing forms of action and requiring that merits only
shall be considered, recovery may be had in con-
. tract, if the allegations and proof support such a
right, although the declaration sounds in tort.25
Where a pleading sets forth two causes of action,
one in contract and the other in tort, and defendant
has not requested a separation of the causes, plain-
Oscar v. Sackville, Civ.App., 253
'S.W. 651.
33 C.J. p 1161 note 75.
Failure of consideration; fraud
Where defense pleaded in an ac-
tion on contract was failure of con-
sideration, but case was submitted
to jury on theory of fraudulent rep-
resentations whereby defendant was
fraudulently induced to execute con-
tract sued on, judgment for defend-
ant could not stand.— Chamblin^v.
Webb, Tex.Civ.App., 155 S.W.2d 676.
Bight of way
In action to Quiet title to land en-
cumbered with right of way, judg-
ment for designated defendants
could not be sustained on ground
that suit established way of neces-
sity, where such right was not al-
leged or adjudicated.— Bertolina v.
Frates, 57 P.2d 346, 89 Utah 238.
Deduction of premium
Insurer, defending on single the-
ory that policy was void, was not en-
titled to deduction for unpaid premi-
um—Masson v. New England Mut.
Life Ins. Co., 260 P. 367, 85 CaLApp.
633.
go, K.Y.— Whiting v. Glass, 111
IB. 1082, 217 N.Y. 335.
33 'C.J. p H61 note 76.
Inability to plead laches
Where the theory that plaintiff's
case was based on fraud was flrsi
disclosed by his reply and was noi
indicated by the complaint so that
defendant could not plead laches, al-
though he was entitled to do so, de-
fendant was nevertheless entitled to
insist on such defense if there was
evidence to support it.— -Crosby v
Bobbins, 182 P. 12-2, 66 Mont. 179.
21. Wash.— Easter v. Hall, 40 P
728, 12 Wash. 160.
33 C.J. P H61 n°te 77.
tiff may recover on either one which he may
prove,2* although he may not recover on both.27
General and special assumpsit. Plaintiffs who
sue on a special or express contract ordinarily can-
not recover on an implied contract, such as a quan-
tum meruit, and vice versa,28 although in some cas-
es such recovery has been permitted.29 Where the
declaration or complaint contains counts or allega-
tions seeking recovery on an implied contract apart
from the special contract, a recovery thereon may
be had.80 Under the common counts no recovery
may be had for breach of a special contract.31
Legal or equitable. Under codes and practice acts
it has frequently been made the duty of the court
to grant such relief as the complaint and the proof
thereunder show plaintiff entitled to receive, with-
out any distinction between law and equity.32 The
relief granted, however, must nevertheless be con-
sistent with the case made by the complaint.33 If
Recovery Held proper
A contract to act as defendant's
business agent, although not con-
templating lawsuits, necessarily in-
cluded services in connection there-
with if necessary, as in procuring
witnesses, and hence recovery for
such services was on the express
contract pleaded aJid not on an im-
plied contract — Crawford's Adm'r v.
Ross, 186 S.W.2d 797, -299 Ky. 664.
22. U.S.-^Tohnston v. Venturing C.
€.A.Pa., -294 P. S3 6.
Tex.— Joe B. Winslett, Inc. v. City
of Hamlin, Civ.App., "56 S.W.2d
237— McFaddin v. Sims, 97 S.W.
335, 45 Tex.Civ.App. 598.
33 C.J. p 1161 note 73.
Fraud
Judgment cannot be rendered as
on contract or in assumpsit where
the complaint is in fraud. .
Mich. — Barber v. Kolowich, 277 N.
W. 189, 283 Mich. 97.
N.Y.— Smith v. Cohen, 175 N.E. 361,
'256 N.Y. 33.
33 C.J. p 1161 note 78 [b].
Conversion
Plaintiff electing to sue In con
version could not recover in as-
sumpsit for money had and received.
— Maxol Syndicate v. N. T. Hege-
man Co., 245 N.Y.S. 99, 158 Misc.
179.
23. Tex._joe B. Winslett, Inc. v.
City of Hamlin, Civ.App., 56 S.W.
2d 237.
33 C.J. p 1161 note 79.
24. N.Y.— Degraw v. Elmore, 50 N
Y. 1.
33 C.J. P H62 note 80.
25. Miss.^Southeastern Exp. Co. v
Namie, 181 So. 515, 182 Miss. 447
23. Colo.— Erisman v. McCarty, 236
P. ?77, 77 Colo. 289.
27. Colo. — Erisman v. McCarty, su-
pra.
281 Ind. — Indianapolis Real Estat
Board v. Willson, 187 N.E. 400, 9
Ind.App. 72.
Me. — Dufour v. Stebbins, 145 A. 893
128 Me. 133.
N.Y.-^Sears v. Hetfield, 221 N.Y.S
494, 220 App.Div. 725.
33 C.J. p 1160 note 70.
29. CaL— Warder v. Hutchison, 231
P. 563, 69 CaLApp. 291,
33 C.J. P 1161 note 71.
30. S.C.— Cleveland v. Butler, 78 S.
E. SI, 94 S.C. 406.
! -C.J. p 1161 note T2.
31. Mich.— £5ook v. Bade, 158 N.W.
175, 191 Mich. 561.
53 C.J. p 11-61 note 73.
32. Cal.— Waters v. Woods, 42 P.2d
1072, 5 Cal.App.2d 483— Arbucklo
v. Clifford F. Reid, Inc., 4 P.2d 978,
118 CaLApp. 272.
Okl. — Fernow v. Gubser, 162 P.2d
529 — Owens v. Purdy, 217 P. 425,
90 Okl. 2'56.
33 C.J. p 1162 note 83.
Enforcement of legal right* accord.
Ing to rules of law
Where, although plaintiff asks
equitable relief, he alleges and
proves only such facts as entitle him
to strict legal rights, court will en-
force his legal rights, but only ac-
cording to strict rules of law. —
Grant v. Hart, 14 S.B.2d 860, 192 Ga.
153.
33. MO.— Congregation B'Nai Abra-
ham v. Arky, 20 S.W.2d 1899, 323
Mo. '776— Bragg v. Specialty Shoe
Machinery Co., 54 S.W.2d 1*4, 225
Mo.App. 90*2.
33 C.J. p 1162 note 84.
132
49 G.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
|54
the complaint is framed solely for equitable relief,
even under the code, where the same court admin-
isters both systems of law and equity, the party
must maintain his equitable action on equitable
grounds or fail, even though he may prove a good
cause of action at law on the trial84 Averment
of an equitable cause of action and proof of only
a legal cause of action has been held to be a vari-
ance amounting to a failure of proof;85 but, where
an equitable cause of action is established, the judg-
ment may award legal relief, as for example, by
way of damages, in lieu of equitable relief which
in the particular case is impracticable or inequita-
ble.86 Where the facts alleged will support either
legal or equitable relief, or both,8? or where, by ac-
quiescence and failure to object, the issues have
been broadened so as to include the legal cause of
action,88 a judgment on the legal cause of action
is proper, although the equity fails. Where the
complaint alleges only a cause of action at law,
and the proof fails to establish the cause of ac-
tion alleged, equitable relief ordinarily will not be
awarded, although it appears that plaintiff would
be entitled thereto on a properly framed com-
plaint;89 but equitable relief may be granted, al-
though only legal relief is prayed, where both the
allegations and the proofs show that plaintiff is en-
titled to equitable relief.40
§ 54. Amount of Recovery
a. In general
b. Interest
a. In General
The judgment must conform to the pleadings and
proof with respect to the amount of the recovery, al-
though a recovery for more than the sum demanded may
be proper where permitted by statute, or where by con-
sent of the parties the pleadings have been enlarged by
the evidence. An excessive judgment, although erro-
neous and subject to correction, Is not on that account
void.
In amount, as in other respects, a judgment must
conform to, and be supported by, the pleadings41
and the proof.42 A judgment for more than the
34. Or. — McCann v. Oregon Scenic
Trips Co., 209 P. 483, 105 Or. 213,
followed in Smith v. Oregon Scenic
Trips Co., 209 P. 486, 105 Or. 222.
33 C.J. p 1162 note 85.
35. N.Y.-- Jackson v. Strong 118 N.
E. 512, 222 N.T. 149.
33 C.J. p 1163 note 86.
36. 111.— Stella v. Mosele, 27 N.B.
2d 559, 305 111. App. 577,
33 C.J. p 1163 note 87.
Retention of jurisdiction by equity
to afford legal relief see Equity §
69.
37. U.S. — Hagar v. Townsend, C.C.
N.T., $7 •P. 433, affirmed 72 Fed.
949, 19 C.C.A. 256.
33 C.J. p 1163 note 89.
38. N.Y. — Fairchild v. -Lynch, 42 N.
Y Super. 265.
33 C.J. p 1163 note 90.
Issues broadened by consent see su-
pra $50.
39. N.C.— McParland v. Cornwell, 66
S.E/454, 1-51 N.C. 42'8.
33 C.J. p 1163 note 92.
40. N.Y.— Hale T. Omaha Nat. Bank,
49 N.Y. 626.
33 C.J. p 1163 note 93.
41. Ky. — Asher v. Pioneer Coal Co.,
283 S.W. 954, 214 Ky. 505.
La. — Ethrldge-Atkins Corporation v.
Abraham, App., 160 So. 817— Unity
Plan Finance Co., v. Green, App.,
148 So. 297, annulled on other
grounds 151 So. 85, reversed on
other grounds 155 So. 900, 179
La. 1070 — Bird v. Johnson, 133 So.
516, 16 La.Ajpp. 155.
N.Y. — Universal Steel Export Co. v.
N. & G. Taylor Co., 203 N.Y.& 331,
'208 App.Div. 308, affirmed 147 N.E.
209, 239 N.Y. '594.
N.C. — Corpus Juris quoted in Slmms
v. Sampson, 20 S.E.2d 554, 559,
221 N.C. 379.
Pa. — Zuber v. Rinko, Com.Pl., 10 Sch.
Reg. 159. • .
Tex.— New York Life Ins. Co. v. Eng-
lish, 72 S.W. 58, 9-6 Tex. 268—
Kaufman Oil Mill v. Republic Nat.
Bank & Trust Co., Civ. App., 43 S.
W.2d 269.
33 C.J. p 1163 note 95.
Absence of issue limiting- plaintiffs'
interest
Where defendant had withdrawn
an answer alleging- as a pro tanto
defense that the two plaintiffs were
not the only heirs of the ancestor
under whom they claimed, without re-
iterating- that allegation in the
amended answer, the court, on find-
ing for plaintiffs, properly adjudged
them to be the owners of the entire
interest in the property involved,
since there was no Issue limiting
their interest— Asher v. Gibson, 248
S.W. 862, 198 Ky. 285.
m partition
(1) As a general rule plaintiff
should not be awarded a greater
share of the property than he claims.
— Carr v. Langford, Civ. App., 144 "S.
W.2d 612, affirmed Langford v. Carr,
159 S.W.2d 10*7, 138 Tex. 330 — 47 C.
J. p 430 note 66.
(2) However, the fact that com-
plainant alleges himself to be enti-
tled to a smaller interest in the lands
than that to which he is really enti-
tled under the facts alleged by him
has been held to be no bar to a de-
cree vesting in him his proper share.
133
Ky. — King v. Middlesborough Town-
lands Co., 50 S.W. 37, 106 Ky. 73,
20 Ky.L. 1859, rehearing denied
and opinion extended 106 Ky. 73,
50 S.W. 1108, 20 Ky.L. 1859.
N.Y.— Lamb v. Lamb, 14 N.Y.S. 206,
affirmed -30 N.E. 133, 131 N.Y. 227.
Reservation, of issue for further de-
termination
Where determination of lessors'
liability for sublessee's trespass was
reserved for further adjudication,
amount of lessors' liability was not
limited by amount sought in origi-
nal and amended petition. — Davis v.
Kentland Coal & Coke Co., 57 S.W.
2d 542, 247 Ky. 642.
Judgments held proper
Conn. — Winsor v. Hawkins, 37 A.2d
222, 130 Conn. 669.
Tex. — Shropshire v. Jones, Civ.App.,
129 S.W.2d 4SO— Hill v. Willett
Civ.App., 281 S.W. 1110 — Decatur
[Land, Loan & Abstract Co. v. Rut-
land, Civ.App.f 185 S.W. 1064.
42. N.C. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Simms v. Sampson, 20 S.E.2d 554,
559, 221 N.C. 379.
Tex. — Zaunbrecher v. Trim, Civ.
App., 31 S.W.2d *839 — Fidelity Un-
ion Fire Ins. Co. v. Barnes, Civ.
App., 293 S.W. 279.
W.Va, — De Stubner v. United Carbon
Co., 28 S.B.2d 59-3, 126 W.Va, 3«63.
33 C.J. p 1164 note 96.
Erroneous basis of value
Judgment In amount based on
price contended for by neither par-
ty to action for balance due on mer-
chandise sold at price to be fixed on
future date was erroneous, legal
rights of parties and interest of pub-
lic at large demanding finding on
i 54
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
.mount admitted or established to be due cannot
tand.43 Ordinarily a judgment cannot properly be
•endered for a greater sum, whether by way of debt
>r damages, than is claimed or demanded by plain-
tiff in his declaration or complaint,44 plus, as dis-
cussed infra subdivision b of this section, interest
in proper cases, and costs,45 notwithstanding the ev-
idence may prove a greater debt or a greater
)asls of value in keeping- with con-
;ention of one side or other. — Max-
yell Planting Co. v. A. P. Loveman
& Co., 102 So. 45. 212 Ala. 228.
Rents or damages
(1) A judgment awarding rents
3r substantial damages in an action
Df ejectment should be based on
testimony as to their value. — Hahn v.
Cotton, 37 S.W. 919, 136 Mo. 216—
19 C.J. p 1240 note IB.
(2) However, in some jurisdic-
tions, it seems, no further proof is
required, where an allegation of, and
claim for, damages in a verified com-
plaint is not controverted. — Patter-
son v. Ely, 19 Cal. 28.
43. Cal. — King v. San Jose Keystone
Mining Co., 127 P.2d 286, 53 Cal.
App.2d 40 — Robinson v. Arthur R.
Lindburg, Inc., 3'5 P.2d 1057, 140
Cal. App. 669.
Ga. — Fred Didschuneit &. Son v.
Enochs -Lumber & Mfg. Co., 156 S.
B. 720, 42 Ga.App. 527.
Ky.— Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of
U. S. v. Austin, 72 S.W.2d 716, 255
Ky. 23.
Mo. — Hecker v. Bleish, 3 S.W.2d 1008,
319 Mo. 149— Vogt v. United Rys.
'•Co. of St. Louis, App.f 251 S.W.
416.
N.Y. — Nassau Suffolk Lumber & Sup-
ply Corporation v. Bruce, '3'8 N.Y.
S.2d 75, 265 App.Div. 879, appeal
denied 39 N.Y.S.2d 618, 2-65 App.
Div. 1002.
N.C. — Corpus Juris quoted in Simms
v. Sampson, 20 S.E.2d 554, 559,
221 N.C. 379.
Or. — Olds v. Von der Hellen. 270 P.
497, 127 Or. 276.
Tex. — Leftwich v. Summers, Civ.
App., 89 S.W.2d 1091— Southwest-
ern Bell Telephone Co. v. Burris,
Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d 542.
Wash.— Babare v. Rodman, 226 P.
1015, 130 Wash. 317.
33 C.J. p 1164 note 97—19 C.J. p 1240
note 16.
Agreed valuation
Where the agreed valuation of loss
of goods sustained by a shipper was
a certain amount, it was error to en-
ter judgment for a larger amount. —
Lancaster v. Houghton, Tex.Civ.App.,
249 S.W. 1103, error dismissed 45
S.Ct. 194, 266 U.S. 590, 69 L.Ed. 456.
Mortgage as security for future
debts
In absence of 
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11